3.ADGER..nD. 


^^.\'>f  ^^  ^fli^ce 


^/r 


,    DEC  13  1899 


BX    9225    .A25   A4  ; 

Adger,    John  B.    1810-1899. 
My   life   and   times,    1810-1899 


NO, 


tx^i' 


ivi''' 


MY 


LIFE  AND  TIMES, 


1810-1899. 


JOHN  B.  ADGEE,  D.  D. 


RICHMOND,   VA.: 
The  Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publication. 


COPYKIGHT,  1899, 
BT 

JAMES  K.  IIAZEK,  Secretary  of  PxiblimUon. 


I'KINTED   BY 
WHITTET  &  SUEPPEUSON, 

Richmond,  Va. 


PREFACE. 


This  Autobiography  deserves,  and  doubtless  will  re- 
ceive, a  hearty  welcome  at  the  hands  of  a  discriminating 
and  appreciative  public.  The  reader  will  readily  per- 
ceive by  glancing  over  the  Table  of  Contents  that  it  is 
much  more  than  a  simple  detail  of  private  life ;  it  is  the 
history  of  a  very  important  and  influential  branch  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  in  her  struggles  to  maintain  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,  as  that  church  was  called,  in 
the  providence  of  God,  to  deliver  her  testimony  during  the 
century  now  rapidly  drawing  to  its  close.  The  author 
saw  the  light  of  day  during  the  first  decade  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  closed  his  eyes  in  death  when  but  two 
years  remained  of  the  last  decade. 

It  was  written,  not  during  his  youth  and  inexperience, 
nor  yet  in  the  middle  period  of  life,  when  his  energies 
were  expended  in  the  heat  of  battle,  but  after  the  hand  of 
God  had  been  laid  upon  him,  and  through  physical  infir- 
mities his  soul  had  been  called  into  the  chamber  of  afflic- 
tion to  commune  in  secret  with  the  Father  of  mercies  and 
the  God  of  all  grace.  Thus,  whilst  rapidly  ncaring  the 
haven  of  eternal  rest,  he  entered  upon  this  work  of  review- 
ing the  storms  of  life.  His  course  was  almost  run,  the 
goal  of  a  finished  and  successful  race  was  just  within  his 
grasp,  when  he  delivered  this  dying  testimony,  and,  like 
the  Psalmist,  "showed  thy  strength  unto  this  generation 
and  thy  power  to  every  one  that  is  to  come.".  It  must 
therefore  impart  a  quickened  interest  to  these  pages  when 
we  reflect  that  they  were  written  with  eternity  in  view, 


4  PREFACE. 

looking  backward  over  the  troubled  past;  also  forward 
into  a  glorious  future.  When  the  light  of  nature  was 
dying  and  the  light  of  the  celestial  city  was  dawning,  he 
paused  in  the  midst  of  Jordan  to  erect  this  monument  to 
the  glory  of  God,  as  a  token  to  those  who  should  come 
after.  That  pen  which  he  liad  so  diligently  used  in  life 
to  propagate  and  defend  the  truth,  and  so  tenaciously  held 
in  his  closing  hours,  dropped  from  the  faithful  hand  only 
when  the  last  summons  came,  and  the  ink  was  scarcely 
dry  when  his  spirit  took  its  flight.  And  yet  he  had  not 
fully  accomplished  all  that  was  planned.  "Chapter  XI., 
Providential  Dealings — Full  Account  of  Revision,"  it 
will  be  noted,  has  been  left  "unwritten."  The  decree  had 
gone  forth,  "Seal  up  those  things  .  .  .  and  write  them 
not." 

Although  this  book  was  written  during  the  closing 
years  of  its  venerable  author,  yet  his  mental  faculties  had 
been  most  remarkably  preserved ;  so  that  we  have  the  re- 
sult of  his  fully  ripened  powers,  chastened  by  affliction 
and  thoroughly  disciplined  by  long  years  of  faithful  ap- 
plication and  diligent  use.  This  consideration  has  an  im- 
portant bearing  upon  that  very  large  section  of  the  book, 
embracing  two  chapters  on  "The  Controversies  of  My 
Times."  The  bent  of  his  mind,  the  many  years  spent  in 
the  faithful,  earnest,  and  diligent  study  of  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,  to  the  teaching  of  which  in  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary he  had  devoted  many  years  in  the  very  prime  of  life, 
furnished  him  with  unusual  qualifications  for  this  calm 
review  of  those  controversies.  Truly,  he  seemed  to  have 
been  qualified  and  called  of  God  to  w^rite  these  chapters 
before  he  could  say,  "I  have  finished  my  course."  This 
feature  of  the  work  has  been  noticed  by  others. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  ITazcn,  of  Richmond,  Va.,  has  written: 
"Its  chief  value  will  be  found  in  the  light  which  it  throws 
upon  the  critical  periods  of  the  history  of  the  Presbyte- 


PKEFACE.  O 

rian  Chnrcli  during  tlie  century.  ISTo  man  was  more 
familiar  with  the  notable  controversies  of  the  whole  pe- 
riod, nor  better  able  to  give  the  history  of  them ;  no  man 
more  fully  imderstood  the  causes  leading  to  the  division 
of  the  old  church;  and  no  man  was  more  active  in  the 
organization  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  and 
its  agencies  than  was  Dr.  Adger ;  and  no  one  has  given  to 
all  questions  that  have  stirred  the  church,  from  its  or- 
ganization to  the  present  time,  a  more  earnest  and  intelli- 
gent consideration  than  he.  .  .  .  So  that  there  is  need 
of  just  such  a  review  of  the  history  of  those  times,  with 
the  testimony  of  one  who,  as  much  as  any  one,  was 
familiar  with  the  inside  history  of  the  Church." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Palmer,  of  Xew  Orleans,  La.,  says  of  the 
work :  "Four  or  five  of  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  proposed 
volume  were  kindly  submitted  to  my  perusal  by  the 
revered  author,  which  led  me  to  urge  upon  him  the  com- 
pletion and  ]:)u])lication  of  the  work.  Dr.  Adger  was  dis- 
tinguished for  the  honesty  and  earnestness  of  his  convic- 
tions ;  and  as  the  last  years  of  his  prolonged  life  were 
given  to  the  task,  the  public  has  every  assurance  of  his 
fidelity  to  the  truth  in  the  statement  of  all  the  issues  in 
the  controversies  of  his  day.  Its  exceeding  timeliness  at 
the  present  juncture  cannot  be  overestimated." 

Aside,  however,  from  this  feature  of  the  volume,  there 
will  be  a  peculiar  charm  to  many  readers  in  turning  these 
pages  and  tracing  the  developments  of  God's  providence 
in  the  "Life"  of  the  author,  from  his  cradle  to  his  grave. 
Surely,  it  will  be  edifying  to  the  pious  heart  of  the  de- 
vout reader  to  note  the  windings  of  this  subtle  stream  of  a 
life  so  full  of  various  incidents,  of  abounding  grace,  and 
of  triumphant  faith.  To  the  young,  it  will  be  a  tonic ;  to 
the  aged,  a  cordial ;  to  those  still  battling  for  truth,  it  will 
serve  to  gird  them  anew  for  the  strife,  with  unalterable 
resolve  to  fight  on  till  death  shall  secure  a  crown  of  vie- 


6  PREFACE. 

tory  over  all  falsehood,  in  the  presence  of  him  who  is  the 
King  of  Truth,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and  the  Saviour 
of  Sinners.  There  are  many  thousands  of  God's  dear 
children  shut  in  by  the  hand  of  bodily  infirmity ;  to  such, 
what  treasures  of  joy  may  be  discovered  in  this  miveiling 
of  the  life  of  one  whom  the  Father  loved,  and  whom  there- 
fore he  chastened. 

Jas.  L.  Martin. 
Palmyka,  ]\Io. 


co:nte]^ts. 


CHAPTER  I.  P^oE. 

OuK  Ancestry,         ........         9 

1689—1810. 

CHAPTER  II. 

My  Childhood  and  Early  Youth,    .         .         .  .41 

1810—1832. 

CHAPTER  III. 

ACADEIVIY  AND  CoLLEGE  LiFE,      .  .  .  .  .  .56 

1824—1828. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Theological  Seminary  Life. — Our  Marriage  and  Sail- 
ing TO  Smyrna. — My  Wife's  Ancestry,     ...       70 

1829—1834. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Life  Among  the  Armenians,    ...  .         .       90 

1834— 184G. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Visit  to  America  for  a  Year,  but  My  Return  was  Not 

Allowed,  and  What  Followed,        .         .         .         .130 
1846—1859. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Five  Years'  Work  as   Missionary   to    the   Negroes   in 

Charleston,    .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .164 

1847-1851. 


8  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII.  pagk. 

Retirement  from  Negro  Work. — Dr.  Girardeau  Suc- 
ceeds.— Eyes  Recuperate  from  Five  Years'  Farm 
Life. — Called  to  Theological  Seminary,         .         .     201 

1852—1857. 

CHAPTELi  IX. 

Literary    Work.  — W^riting.  —  Editing  —  Publishing. — 

Seminary  Life. — Calvin's  Institutes,        .         .         .     227 

CHAPTER  X. 

Reminiscences  of  the  War,     ......     327 

CHAPTER  XL 

Providental  Dealings. — Full  Account  of  the  Revision,      350 
(Unwritten. ) 

CHAPTER  XIL— Part  I. 

The  Controversies  of  My  Times,    .         .         .         .         .351 

1801—1861. 

CHAPTER  XIL— Part  II. 

Controversies  of  Science  with  the  Word  of  God,  .         .     412 

1884—1891. 


APPENDIX  A. 

The  Condition  of  Missions  Among  the  Armenians  in  the 

Year  1896, GG7 

APPENDIX  B. 

The  Armenian  Crisis  in  Turkey. — The  Massacre  of  1894,     673 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Our  Axcestry. 

1689-1810. 


M 


Y  rATHER  claimed  that  our  ancestors  fought  at 


&^ 


Derry.  He  Avas  speaking  to  his  daughter  Jane 
Anne,  who  was  ambitious  of  an  honorable  ancestry,  and 
he  said,  "Your  ancestors  fought  at  Derry  till  they  were 
lousy,  and  that  is  honor  enough  for  you."  He  was  not  a 
man  to  make  such  a  claim  without  knowing  well  the 
grounds  on  which  he  based  it.  He  may  have  intended 
that  this  honor  came  to  us  in  his  father's  line ;  or  that  it 
came  to  us  in  his  mother's  line ;  or  that  it  came  to  us  in 
botli.  He  may  also  have  intended  that  it  came  to  us  in 
the  line  of  our  mother's  ancestors.  It  is  possible  that 
each  one  of  these  lines  was  represented  among  the  heroic 
defenders  of  Londonderry.  There  are  people  of  all  three 
of  these  lines  now  in  both  Antrim  and  Derry.  My  grand- 
mother was  a  Crawford,  and  she  had  connections  living 
in  Columbia  who  could  trace  the  family  history  back 
through  five  or  six  generations.  This  might  bring  them 
nearly  or  quite  back  to  the  time  Londonderry  was  be- 
sieged. Macaulay  tells  us  that  the  inhabitants  were 
Anglo-Saxon,  but  witli  the  Englishry,  as  he  calls  them, 
were  a  good  many  Scotch.  At  the  commencement  of  the 
siege,  whilst  the  authorities  hesitated,  thirteen  young  ap- 
prentices, all  of  Scotch  descent,  took  on  them  to  close  the 
gates  against  a  detachment  from  the  Irish  army  who  had 
appeared  and  demanded  entrance.  That  night  messen- 
gers were  sent  to  the  Protestants  of  the  neighboring 
counties  to  come  to  the  city's  defence.  Hundreds  of  horse 
and   foot  obeyed    immediately.      These   of  course  were 


10  MY  LIFE  AMD  TIMES. 

Scotch  people  as  well  as  Eng-lisli,  and  we  may  ))e  sure 
tliorc  were  Crawfords  ainoui;'  tlioin,  for  the  garrison 
within  shortly  became  seven  thousand  arms-bearing  men. 
"But,"  says  Macaulay  (Vol.  III.,  p.  153),  "the  whole 
world  could  not  have  furnished  seven  thousand  men  bet- 
ter qualified  to  meet  a  terrible  emergency,  with  clear 
judgment,  dauntless  valor,  and  stubborn  patience.  They 
were  all  zealous  Protestants."  He  also  says  (page  113), 
"They  were  indeed  not  all  of  one  country,  nor  of  one 
church ;"  but,  according  to  him,  "one  common  antipathy 
bound  all  these  Protestants  together — an  antipathy  to  the 
Irish  race  and  the  Popish  religion." 

But  in  1GS9  amongst  the  reinforcements  assembled  at 
Chester  under  Schomberg  for  the  relief  of  Londonderry 
and  ready  to  depart  for  Ireland  there  were  thousands  of 
one  class  of  men  who  had  more  of  the  antipathy  just  men- 
tioned than  either  English  or  Scotchmen.  Macaulay  tells 
us  (page  325)  that  four  regiments  accompanied  Schom- 
berg from  amongst  the  French  Refugees,  who  fled  to 
London  after  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Xantes. 
These  were  three  regiments  of  foot  soldiers  and  one  of 
cavalry.  The  cavalry  regiment  "was  raised  by  Schomberg 
himself.  The  foot  regiments  were  raised  chiefly  by  the 
Marquess  of  Ruvigny.  His  abilities,  his  experience,  and 
his  munificent  kindness  made  him  the  undisputed  chief 
among  the  refugees.  He  was  himself  eighty  years  of  age, 
but  his  two  sons,  both  men  of  eminent  courage,  devoted 
their  swords  to  the  service  of  William.  The  younger  son, 
who  bore  the  name  of  Caillemote,  was  appointed  colonel 
of  one  of  the  Huguenot  regiments  of  foot.  The  two  other 
regiments  of  foot  were  commanded  by  La  Melloniere  and 
Oambon,  officers  of  high  reputation. 

It  is  respecting  these  French  exiles  that  ]\Licaulav  says 
they  were  among  the  best  troops  under  Schomberg's  com- 
mand. He  says  (page  337)  that  "the  dislike  with  which 
the  most  zealous  English  Protestant  regarded  the  House 
of  Bourbon  and  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a  lukewarm 
feeling  when  compared  with  that  inextinguishable  hatred 
which  glowed  in  the  bosom  of  the  persecuted,  dragooned, 
expatriated  Calvinist  of  Languedoc.  The  Irish  had 
:ilready  remarked  that  the  French  heretic  neither  gave 


OUR  ANCESTKY.  11 

Tior  took  quarter."  Accordin^'ly  we  find  that  at  the  hat- 
tie  of  the  Boyne,  where  William  commanded,  when 
Schomberg  g:ives  the  word,  and  Solmes'  Blues  move  into 
the  river  followed  by  Londonderry  and  Enniskillen,  it  is 
Oaillemot  who  crosses  next  at  the  head  of  his  long-  column 
of  French  Refugees,  followed  by  the  main  body  of  Eng- 
lish infantry  and  the  Danes. 

Xow  we  know  that  some  five  hundred  thousand  of 
Louis'  best  subjects  fled  to  Holland  and  to  England  when 
he  revoked  the  Edict  of  Xantes.  Many  of  them  settled 
in  London.  These  exiles  carried  with  them  remarkal)le 
industry,  economy,  and  peculiar  skill  in  various  mechani- 
cal arts.  ]\Iany  of  them  were  French  manufacturers  of 
various  branches.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  some  of 
Schomberg's  soldiers  would  remain  in  Ireland  after  the 
close  of  the  war  by  the  flight  of  James  to  Paris.  These 
would  link  to  Ireland  some  of  their  brethren  whom  they 
liad  left  behind  in  London.  How  natural  that  many  of 
these  should  prefer  to  the  crowded  streets  of  London  a 
residence  in  the  beautiful  region  of  ISTorth  Ireland,  when 
they  and  their  brethren  who  had  served  under  King  \Yil- 
liam  would  be  sure  to  find  a  warm  welcome  among  their 
English  and  Scotch  fellow  Protestants.  And  how  natural 
that  thus  many  more  should  be  attracted  thither  from 
F^rance  itself  to  set  up  silk  and  linen  factories  in  Ulster. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Henry  Quigg,  a  Presbyterian  minister 
of  Conyers,  Ga.,  is  a  native  of  the  Xortli  of  Ireland,  and 
writes  me  that  he  heard  a  great  deal  about  the  siege  of 
Derry  from  his  mother  when  he  was  a  boy.  Her  people 
were  engaged  in  that  terrible  conflict.  Dr.  Quigg  has 
long  been  an  earnest  student  of  the  history  of  LHster.  He 
is  a  very  high  authority  in  respect  to  Irish  antiquity,  and 
he  says  that  "it  is  very  certain  that  Schomberg,  who  fell 
at  the  battle  of  the  Boyne,  brought  over  a  large  body  of 
French  Protestant  soldiers,  who  fought  the  battles  of 
William  III.,  of  glorious  fame  and  immortal  memory,  in 
Ireland.  Very  many  of  these  French  remained  in  Ire- 
land, as  they  had  no  country  to  call  their  own."  "The 
persecuted  Protestants  came  to  Ulster  in  great  numbers 
and  established  manufactories  of  various  kinds  in  the 
<'ounties  of  Antrim,  Down,  and  Derrv.     Ulster  became 


12  MY   J.IFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  iratlierinii-  g-round  of  those  persecuted  for  conscience* 
sake  in  tlie  diiferent  parts  of  Europe,  but  specially  in 
France  and  Holland.  They  engaged  in  all  kinds  of  man- 
ufacturing, which  I  am  satisfied  embraced  linen  as  well  as 
silk." 

Dr.  Quigg  speaks  of  the  settlement  of  the  refugees  in 
Ulster  aboiit  two  hundred  years  ago.  We  might  naturally 
expect  to  find  that  some  descendants  of  these  people  should 
still  be  found  in  that  province.  Their  names,  especially, 
and  their  other  characteristics  should  point  them  out.  It 
is  thus  in  South  Carolina  with  the  descendants  of  the 
Huguenots.  Accordingly  there  is  in  Ulster  at  this  day 
a  considerable  number  of  persons  whose  name  has  as  fully 
the  French  shape  as  the  well-known  name  Huger.  But 
in  our  country  neither  that  French  name  nor  many  others 
like  it,  as  for  instance  Legare,  have  retained  the  French 
pronunciation.  It  is  just  so  with  the  name  of  the  persons 
in  Ireland  whom  I  refer  to.  It  is  spelt  in  three  different 
ways,  all  pronounced  exactly  alike,  but  not  pronounced 
in  French  fashion.  All  this  looks  as  if  the  Ulster  people 
were  in  this  case  handling  the  name  of  foreigners.  The 
name  referred  to  I  have  never  found  either  in  English  or 
Scotch  history.  It  looks  distinctively  like  a  French  name, 
and  it  may  point  oiit  the  descendants  of  French  people. 
It  certainly  does  not  jjoint  out  the  descendants  of  English 
people,  nor  yet  the  descendants  of  Scotch  people,  and 
certainly  those  it  does  point  out  are  not  the  descendants 
of  the  Irish.  In  Ulster  this  name  is  sometimes  spelt 
Edger,  xVdgar,  Adger,  but  it  is  always  pronounced  one 
way.  The  argument  then  for  our  partial  French  origin 
stands  thus.  It  seems  to  be  certain  that  two  hundred 
years  ago  there  were  many  French  Protestants  settled  in 
Ulster.  It  also  seems  to  be  certain  that  they  established 
linen  manufactures  there.  It  seems  to  be  probable  that 
there  are  many  descendants  of  these  people  there  who  still 
retain  their  French  name,  and  in  some  degree  their  blood. 
But  it  is  ahs-olutchj  certain  that  after  the  lapse  of  eighty 
years,  that  is,  at  least  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  ago, 
there  was  a  linen  manufactory  and  bleaching  green 
owned  and  operated  in  Dunean,  County  Antrim,  Prov- 
ince of  Ulster,  and  that  the  owner  stamped  that  French 


OUR  ANCESTRY.  13 

name  upon  the  linen  he  produced.  Xow  that  man  was 
certainly  my  grandfather,  James  Adger,  and  to  make  the 
conclusion  still  more  complete  and  positive,  my  father  is 
known  to  have  claimed  that  his  ancestors  came  over  from 
France  to  Ireland.  He  said  to  my  sister  Jane  Anne,  "My 
people  were  not  Scotch ;  they  were  French." 

The  fourth  and  the  fifth  statements  just  made  I  cannot 
set  aside.  The  fifth  is  testimony  from  ample  intelligence 
and  unimpeachable  veracity.  Yet,  although  one  element 
of  the  paternal  blood  was  really  French,  it  always  paid 
due  honor  to  its  sister  element,  which  was  Scotch-Irish. 
I  remember  well  how  great  was  my  father's  admiration 
oi  William  11.  Crawford,  of  Georgia.  He  was  certainly  a 
very  great  man,  filled  many  important  offices  for  the  State 
of  Georgia,  and  but  for  a  coalition  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives at  Washington,  between  the  friends  of  his  op- 
posing candidates,  Clay  and  Adams,  he  would  have  been 
elected  President  of  the  United  States.  He  was  beyond 
all  comparison  my  father's  preference,  which  I  have  often 
heard  him  express.  But  no  doubt  the  name  and  blood 
of  the  Crawfords  had  something  to  do  with  this. 

It  was  in  the  year  1838  that  my  father  took  me  and 
my  brother  James  to  the  north  of  Ireland.  The  places  I 
remember  best  are  P)elfast,  The  Giants'  Causeway,  Ran- 
dallstown,  and  eight  miles  from  Randallstown,  Dunean. 
I  remember  also  Toome  Bridge,  one  mile  from  Dunean, 
with  its  little  hotel  where  the  sign  that  hung  out  in  front 
had  on  it  the  picture  of  a  bloody  hand  cut  off  at  the  wrist. 
But  I  do  not  remember  what  chieftain's  hand  or  what 
bloody  scene  it  represented.  Toome  Bridge  is  famous  for 
its  eels,  and  riding  past  there  in  the  morning  we  engaged 
lodgings  for  the  night  and  supper.  Such  a  supper  of 
Irish  eels  and  Irish  potatoes,  both  of  finest  quality,  I 
never  ate  before  or  since.  But  my  father's  main  object 
was  that  we  might  go  and  visit  our  grandfather's  grave  at 
Dunean. 

]\Ly  grandfather  Avas,  as  said  before,  a  linen  manufac- 
turer. He  had  his  bleaching  green  at  Dunean.  The  orig- 
inal stamp  which  he  put  on  the  linen  he  made  is  now  in 
the  possession  of  Ellison  Adger  Smyth,  given  to  him  by 
my  sister  Jane  Anne.    It  is  made  of  a  plate  of  solid  brass, 


14  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

into  which  are  cut  tlie  names  James  Adger,  Dunean,  An- 
trim, and  it  has  a  nicely  turned  wooden  handle.  This 
stamp  put  into  blue  ink  was  then  pressed  by  the  hand 
upon  every  piece  of  linen  cloth.  There  is  a  memorandum 
on  a  little,  old  yellow  fragment  of  paper,  by  whom  written 
does  not  appear,  which  reads  thus,  "James  Adger  died 
March  the  25th  day,  half  an  hour  after  six  in  the  morn- 
ing, aged  41  years!^  Died  March  25th,  1783."  On  the 
back  of  this  little  memorandum  is  written  in  my  father's 
hand,  "When  J.  Adger  died."  He  "left  his  widow  well 
to  do."  These  are  the  names  of  his  children:  Jane,  who 
married  Charles  Kidd ;  Betsey,  and  three  sons,  William, 
James  and  Robert. 

This  wdiole  visit  of  mine  to  Ireland,  including  Duncan, 
and  the  grandfather's  grave,  is  indistinctly  impressed  on 
my  memory.  I  had  left  my  work  at  Smyrna,  which  was 
uppermost  in  my  mind.  Moreover,  I  was  looking  forward 
to  a  separation  for  years  from  my  wife,  whose  health  re- 
quired her  to  return  with  my  parents  to  Charleston.  I 
prefer,  therefore,  to  borrow  what  follows  from  the  nar- 
rative of  my  nephew,  Ellison  Adger  Smyth,  who  visited 
the  home  of  our  ancestors  last  summer  (1896).  He  says, 
"After  leaving  the  railroad  station  at  Randallsto^ra,  and 
seeing  no  teams,  T  turned  back  to  ask  questions  of  a  police- 
man. Quite  a  crowd  had  gotten  off  the  train,  and  not 
finding  the  officer,  I  went  up  to  two  men  who  had  gotten 
oif,  and  asked  about  Moneynick  and  then  about  Duncan 
and  the  Adgers.  The  elder  gentleman,  whose  name  is 
Frederick  McCuUough,  who  was  well-dressed  and  ap- 
peared to  be  a  man  of  culture  and  refinement,  said  he 
lived  in  Duncan  village,  and  his  mother  was  an  Adger, 
and  his  father  was  the  late  rector  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
at  Duncan.  I  said  to  him,  'Mv  mother  was  an  Adger.^ 
'Indeed  V  he  said,  'and  how  so  V  I  told  him,  and  he  said, 
*Yes,'  he  knew^  some  of  the  family  lived  in  the  Southern 
States.  He  urged  me  to  stay  all  night  with  him,  and 
oifered  to  show  me  all  around,  and  hunt  up  my  kin.  The 
other  man,  aged  about  thirty-five,  was  John  C.  Stewart, 
who  had  married  ]\rcCullough's  sister's  daughter,  a  grand- 
daughter of  an  Adger.  In  reply  to  my  question  McCul- 
lough  said  the  name  was  spelt  Adcjar,  Edgcr  and  Adger, 


OUK  ANCESTRY.  15 

all  one  family,  and  all  pronounced -as  we  do.  I  hired  a 
jannting  car,  and  Mr.  Stewart  went  with  us,  first  to 
Moneynick,  and  thence  to  Dunean,  There  we  visited, 
first,  the  Presbyterian  church  and  graveyard,  but  found 
no  tombstones  over  seventy-five  years  old.  The  church 
was  a  modern  building  in  fine  order,  and  Stewart  said 
here  the  great  Dr.  Cook  was  ordained.  We  went  on  then 
to  the  Episcopal  church,  a  venerable  stone  edifice,  but 
much  smaller,  and  Stewart,  who  is  a  Presbyterian,  says 
the  congregation  is  small.  The  church-yard  is  very  large, 
and  has  been  the  burial  place  for  many  generations.  Here 
on  one  side,  near  the  church,  I  found  the  Adger  burial 
ground.     Xear  the  centre  of  the  group  I  found  this : 

HERE  LIES  THE  BODY  OF 

JAMES  ADGER, 
WHO  Died  March  25th,  1783, 

AGED  41   TEARS. 

"The  stone  is  erect,  in  good  condition,  the  marble  fine, 
seven  or  eight  inches  thick.  The  grave  is  sodded  over, 
and  in  good  repair.  Tlie  old  graveyard  is  much  over- 
grown with  grass  and  tall  weeds,  and  we  had  to  make  our 
way  through  this  growth  in  order  to  find  the  stone  wdiich 
we  sought.  The  fia'ure  S  in  the  vear  1783  is  the  onlv  part 
in  the  inscription  hard  to  make  out.  There  were  some 
weeds  on  the  grave  itself;  these  I  cut  off,  and  left  the 
grave  in  good  shape." 

He  adds,  ''On  one  side  of  your  grandfather's  grave  was 
an  old  stone  to  John  Edger,  who  died  1701,  aged  sixty- 
three  years;  next  to  that  Robert  Edger,  1702.  On  the 
other  side  of  your  grandfather's  tomb  is  one  to  John 
Edger,  of  Cargan,  1878,  aged  ninety  years,  and  his  wafe 
Xancy,  1885,  aged  ninety-one  years." 

Here,  then,  Ellison  Adger  Smyth  found  two  grave- 
stones bearing  the  name  of  Edger,  one  of  which  lacks  only 
four  and  the  other  only  five  of  being  two  hundred  years 
old.  One  of  these  men  died  at  the  age  of  sixty-three ; 
perhaps  the  other  may  have  been  of  the  same  age.  Now, 
the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  ]^antes  was  in  1685,  six- 
teen years  before  the  death  of  one,  and  seventeen  before 
the  death  of  the  other  of  these  men.     Thev  mav  both  of 


16  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

thcni  have  been  Huguenot  refugees,  who  fought  at  the 
siege  of  Derry  in  16S9,  and  subsequently  with  William 
of  Orange  at  the  battle  of  the  Bo\Tie.  ]\Iy  nephew  said 
Mr.  McCullough  laughed  at  the  idea  of  his  mother's  peo- 
ple being  French.  He  said  they  were  all  from  Scotland. 
But  Mr.  McCullough  might  easily  be  mistaken  on  this 
point.  How  many  people  in  the  upper  part  of  South  CJar- 
olina  could  tell  where  their  ancestors  were  living  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty  years  ago  ?  If  I  should  ask  any  one  of 
them  of  more  than  ordinary  intelligence  to  tell  me  whether 
his  great-great-great-grandfather  in  1675  lived  in  Eng- 
land, or  in  Scotland,  or  in  Wales,  or  in  France,  or  in  Hol- 
land, he  would  certainly  laugh  more  than  Mr.  McCullough 
did  because  I  was  asking  him  what  he  would  consider 
such  a  silly  question.  I  cannot  suppose  that  much  more 
historical  intelligence  prevails  to-day  in  the  north  of  Ire- 
land than  we  find  here  in  the  north  part  of  South  Carolina 
amongst  our  Scotch-Irish  population. 

My  nephew  next  sought  for  the  old  Duncan  Flax  Mill. 
He  says,  "The  little  Stone  ]\[ill,  built  partly  of  stone  and 
partly  of  concrete,  is  still  there.  The  name  given  it  by 
(sverybody  is  'The  Old  Mill.'  The  place  where  the  wheel 
stood  can  be  pointed  out,  and  the  tail  race  is  separate  and 
distinct  from  the  stream ;  it  is  arched  over  and  the  road 
passes  over  it,  and  over  the  bridge  across  what  they  call 
Duncan  River,  but  what  we  would  call  a  creek.  The  peo- 
ple all  say  that  the  old  tail  race  has  been  there  for  over 
a  hundred  years.  It  is  still  left  undisturbed.  jSTo  water 
passes  through  it,  but  it  leads  to  the  river  backing  up 
under  the  mill  building.  It  is  eight  or  ten  feet  wide,  and 
a  man  can  walk  under  it  by  stooping." 

''The  house  is  now  occupied  by  Patrick  Mclntyre,  a 
blacksmith.  He  showed  me  the  old  dam  site  and  tail  race, 
and  where  the  wheel  was  placed,  and  said  that  his  father 
before  him  had  lived  in  this  building  for  over  sixty 
years." 

Moneynick,  where  my  father  was  born  November  2, 
1777,  is  now  a  very  small  hamlet,  with  hardly  a  decent 
dwelling  house,  although  it  has  two  little  flax  mills,  spin- 
ning the  flax,  but  not  weaving.  They  are  run  by  steam, 
and  the  steam  is  got  by  burning  the  straw  of  the  plant. 


OUR  ANCESTRY. 


17 


Dimean  is  still  a  respectable  village.  My  nephew  says, 
''It  has  two  churches,  a  school-house,  and  one  store  and 
a  settlement  of  farmers'  houses  built  of  stone.  In  fact,  I 
did  not  see  a  wooden  building  in  Ireland  that  I  remember. 
Most  are  stone  or  concrete.  Some  families  live  there, 
but  spelling  the  name  Edger." 

His  account  of  the  Old  Mill  at  Dunean  ends  wdth  this 
statement,  ''All  the  linen  sheetings,  which  are  the  plain 
linen  goods,  not  table  cloths,  that  I  have  seen,  are  stamped 
in  blue  with  a  little  hand  stamp,  like  the  one  I  have.  For 
years,  however,  printed  tickets  with  pictures  on  them 
have  been  gradually  introduced  for  all  cloths.  The  linen 
mills  and  most  of  the  cotton  mills  have  stone  floors,  and 
the  help  I  saw,  fully  seventy-five  per  cent,  were  bare- 
footed in  the  mill." 

After  the  death  of  my  grandfather,  his  widow  married 
again.  Her  second  husband's  name  was  Kobert  Rodgers. 
lie  had  been  the  foreman  of  the  Dunean  Mill.  He 
soon  ran  through  her  property,  being  too  fond  of  whis- 
key. 

In  a  little  more  than  ten  years,  viz.,  1793,  our  grand- 
mother left  Ireland  for  this  country,  accompanied  by  her 
two  sons  elames  and  Robert,  her  daughter  Betsey,  also  her 
intemperate  husband  Rodgers,  and  their  four  little  girls, 
Esther,  Margaret,  Mary  and  Isabella,  the  last  named  be- 
ing an  infant.  They  had  a  very  long  passage,  as  was 
nsual  in  those  days,  namely,  sixteen  weeks  and  three  days, 
arriving  in  I^ew  York  January,  1794.  The  other  son,Wil- 
liam  Adger,  had  married  young  and  emigrated  previously, 
coming  to  South  Carolina.  His  wife's  maiden  name  was 
McCrory,  which  is  the  Irish  or  Scotch-Irish  way  of  writ- 
ing Rodgers  or  Rogers.  I  do  not  know,  but  suspect  that 
my  grandmother's  second  husband  belonged  to  that 
family. 

The  voj^age  from  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  was  a 
very  different  affair  one  hundred  years  ago  from  what  it 
is  now.  Inferior  ships,  inferior  navigators,  very  far  in- 
ferior accommodations  for  passengers,  and  a  long  passage 
always,  and  great  suffering.  Food  and  water  always  ran 
short,  and  sometimes  gave  out  entirely.  I  heard  my 
father  tell  of  a  pig  being  slaughtered  on  the  deck  and  how 


18  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

a  rain-storm  coining  on  soon  after,  all  efforts  were  gladly 
made  to  catch  every  drop  that  fell,  and  some  of  the  water 
they  were  thankful  in  their  great  extremity  to  drink 
showed  signs  of  the  pig's  blood,  and  bristles  too. 

On  the  third  day  after  their  arrival  in  Xew  York  the 
infant  Isabella  died  and  was  bnried  in  what  nsed  to  be 
Dr.  Spring's  chnrch-yard,  the  old  ''Brick  Chnrch,"  where 
now,  I  think,  the  Xew  York  City  Post  Office  stands.  Of 
the  other  three  little  girls,  who  all  lived  and  grew  up, 
Esther  married  in  Fairfield  District,  S.  C,  where  her 
brother  William  lived.  At  his  house  all  three  of  them 
seem  to  have  spent  some  time  while  children,  or  growing 
up  girls.  Esther's  husband  was  William  Herron,  a  re- 
spectable planter.  She  raised  a  large  family  and  lived  to 
be  ninety-four  or  ninety-five  years  old.  The  other  two 
girls,  Margaret  and  ^lary,  went  to  a  wealthy  Uncle 
liodgers  of  theirs,  living  at  Kinderhook,  Columbia 
county,  Xew  York,  and  there  they  were  married,  Mar- 
garet to  Charles  Whiting  and  Mary  to  James  Clark,  both 
respectable  merchants  and  partners  in  business.  Mar- 
garet lived  to  be  more  than  seventy,  her  only  daughter 
married  an  eminent  lawyer  of  Albany,  X.  Y.,  named 
Reynolds,  and  has  raised  a  large  family.  Mary  lived  to 
be  about  as  old  as  her  sister  Esther,  and  has  two  daughters 
still  living  at  this  date  (Xovember,  1896),  both  widows, 
one,  Mrs.  Shaw,  in  Xew  York  City,  and  the  other,  Mrs. 
Bain,  living  at  Kinderhook. 

]\ly  Uncle  Robert  Adger  died  while  yet  comparatively 
a  young  man.  He  had  two  daughters.  Xeither  survives 
at  this  day.  My  father  took  them  both  into  his  family 
when  they  were  left  orphans.  The  older  one  married  my 
cousin  William  Ellison. 

^ly  uncle,  William  Adger,  became  wealthy,  raised  a 
large  family  and  died  an  old  man.  Some  of  his  descend- 
ants bearing  the  name  of  Adger  are  living  in  Louisiana, 
on  the  Red  River. 

Their  sister  Betsey  married  Dr.  Charles  Whitlaw,  a 
celebrated  physician  and  naturalist,  whose  public  lectures 
on  botany  possibly  some  few  very  old  people  in  Charles- 
ton may  now  remember.  She  died  early,  and  lies  buried, 
I  believe,  in  the  Scotch  church-yard  (First  Presbyterian), 
Charleston. 


OUR  ANCESTRY. 


19 


Having  brought  this  history  down  so  far,  I  must  go 
back  (asking  my  grandmother  Eodgers'  pardon),  and 
speak  more  fully  of  her.  Her  maiden  name  was  Margaret 
Crawford.  I  have  been  told  by  one  who  knew  of  her  when 
she  w^as  my  grandfather  Adger's  widow  (Mr.  James 
Black,  of  County  Antrim)  that  she  bore  the  title  all 
through  the  country  of  "the  handsome  widow."  Hand- 
some or  not,  I  know  she  was  godly,  which  is  of  far  greater 
consequence.  How  often  in  my  early  childhood  have  I 
seen  her  at  secret  prayer  in  her  bed-room  at  my  father's 
house  in  Charleston.  No  doubt  I  was  one  of  those  who 
inherited  a  blessing  thus.  My  father,  I  am  convinced, 
Avas  her  darling  son,  and  her  Jemmy,  as  I  often  heard  her 
call  him,  must  have  been  truly  a  good  boy. 

The  New  York  to  which  so  many  North-Irish  emi- 
grated was,  even  one  hundred  years  ago,  very  different 
from  what  now  bears  that  name.  John  Stephenson,  in- 
ventor of  the  American  horse-car,  who  is  just  my  age,  and 
was  born,  therefore,  about  1810,  says  the  "difference  is 
amazing,  and  it  looks  like  a  fairy  tale."  He  says  that  in 
his  boyhood  "New  York  City  consisted  of  just  a  few 
small  villages.  The  boys  of  one  hamlet  fared  badly  if 
found  within  the  precincts  of  another,  and  on  Saturday 
afternoons  the  boys  of  two  rival  hamlets  would  face  each 
other  on  either  side  of  a  pit  or  cut  and  fight  one  another 
witJi  stones."  Such  was  the  place  to  which  my  grand- 
mother, with  her  family  of  seven  children,  the  oldest  boy 
some  fifteen  years  old,  came  in  January,  1794.  She  had 
lost  all,  or  nearly  all,  her  property.  A  little  shop  she 
essayed  to  keep,  "her  Jemmy"  being  her  mainstay.  After 
awhile,  as  I  have  learned  from  a  letter  of  my  father's  ad- 
dressed to  his  brother  William  in  South  Carolina,  Robert 
Rogers  reformed,  and  then  it  seems  that  he  and  my  grand- 
mother had  a  grocery  store,  and  Jemmy  went  to  a  trade. 
Whereabouts  "the  little  shop"  or  "the  grocery  store"  stood 
cannot  be  said ;  very  probably  in  that  one  of  the  hamlets 
lowest  down  the  town.  Doubtless  they  have  each  been 
succeeded  by  some  eight  or  ten-story  building,  which  con- 
stitutes the  half  of  a  magnificent  square.  In  those  days 
New  York  was  in  no  respect  superior  to  Charleston — de- 
cidedly, if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  its  inferior.     Many 


20  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

circumstances  combined  to  send  Kew  York  to  the  top ; 
among  them  the  tariff  policy  of  the  United  States  govern- 
ment, and  the  conrse  of  the  Gulf  Stream. 

It  was  probably  not  very  long  that  my  father  remained 
with  his  mother  at  the  little  shop ;  thence  he  went  to 
learn  the  carpenter's  trade.  He  did  not  like  it.  Many 
years  ago  I  had  pointed  out  to  me  a  wooden  building  two 
or  three  stories  high  on  Broadway  on  the  roof  of  which 
he  was  at  Avork  when  a  lad,  so  ill  at  ease  in  that  life  that 
he  was  ready  sometimes,  as  he  said,  to  throw  himself  down 
to  the  ground.  One  day  they  were  doing  some  carpen- 
ter's work  on  a  ship  in  the  harbor.  Another  ship  was 
coming  up  from  some  foreign  land.  He  was  standing 
with  other  lads  for  a  moment  looking  at  this  vessel,  with 
his  coat  off  and  his  sleeves  rolled  up,  and  one  of  the  boys 
carrying  a  bucket  full  of  tar  behind  him  managed  to  im- 
merse his  hands  and  arm  up  to  the  elbow.  It  turned  out 
that  a  friend  of  the  family,  a  Mr.  James  Henderson,  was 
passenger  on  that  vessel  and  he  insisted  on  my  father's 
quitting  that  business,  and  got  him  a  position  with  some 
merchant.  That  merchant,  however,  soon  failed  in  busi- 
ness. And  so  Jemmy,  who  had  been  told  not  to  open  the 
front  door,  set  himself  doAvn  disconsolately  on  the  sill  of 
the  door.  Mr.  Lang,  a  friend  of  his,  came  along  and 
inquired,  "Why  don't  you  open  the  door?"  Being  an- 
swered, he  said,  "I  was  afraid  of  that."  It  was  he  who 
introduced  Jemmy  to  old  Mr.  Bailey,  who  became  a  father 
to  him.  After  him,  in  gratitude,  he  had  me,  who  was  his 
first-born  son,  named.  Mr.  Bailey  was  a  dealer  in  hard- 
ware, and  seems  to  have  had  a  brass  foundry,  and  I  have 
heard  my  father  say,  pointing  to  a  pair  of  old-fashioned 
brass  fire-dogs,  which  had  a  little  curved  ornamentation 
in  their  front,  that  he  remembered  what  a  grand  thing 
that  was  held  to  be  wlien  Mr.  Bailey  first  invented  that 
pattern. 

Some  five  or  six  years  passed  and  my  father  had 
learned  the  business  of  dealing  in  hardware,  which  I  have 
heard  him  say  might  be  called  a  ''regular  and  difficult 
trade/'  There  came  a  ship  from  England  with  a  cargo 
chiefly  of  that  kind  of  goods,  belonging  to,  or  in  charge  of, 
an  Englisliman  whose  name  I  cannot  recall.     I  suppose 


OUR  ANCESTRY.  21 

possibly  lie  was  what  is  called  a  supercargo,  but  he  proved 
incompetent,  and  so  it  fell  to  Mr.  Bailey  to  interpose,  and 
he  sent  the  vessel  to  Charleston  with  this  Englishman  in 
charge,  but  my  father  in  charge  of  him.  That  errand  de- 
cided his  plans  of  life.  It  was  in  1802.  He  never  re- 
turned to  live  in  New  York. 

What  a  different  family  history  had  ours  been  had  he 
not  been  sent  to  Charleston  with  that  cargo  and  that  super- 
cargo. With  his  energy  and  judgment  and  integrity,  had 
he  remained  in  New  York  City  and  begun  to  rise  when 
New  York  began,  he  must,  with  the  favor  of  Providence,, 
have  been  one  of  her  richest  millionaires.  But  what  then 
had  become  of  all  of  us  ? 

Having  sold  out  the  cargo,  he  was  going  up  to  Fairfield 
to  visit  his  brother  William,  who  had  long  been  settled 
there  as  a  planter.  The  journey  from  the  city  was  to  be 
on  horseback — perhaps  the  horse  was  one  that  had  been 
bought  for  his  brother.  But  this  young  man,  so  lately 
from  New  York,  had  never  learned  much  about  horse- 
back riding.  So  he  mounted  with  stirrups  rather  too  long 
for  him,  but  he  did  not  mind  that,  and  started  oif  on  a 
pretty  lively  gait.  Old  Mr.  McCreight,  of  Winnsboro, 
w^ho  was  his  travelling  companion,  overtook  him  after  he 
had  reached  the  outskirts  of  the  town,  and  perceived  that 
he  vras  riding  uncomfortably,  but  mischievously  refrained 
from  suggesting  the  necessary  shortening,  and  my  father 
rode  on  a  long  time,  and  became  tired  enough.  I  am  not 
sure  if  it  was  all  day  or  the  whole  journey  that  he  made 
in  this  fix.  I  fear  I  have  never  forgiven  the  old 
Winnsboro  citizen  for  this  unfriendly  dealing  with  the 
stranger. 

It  was  during  this  visit  to  his  brother  that  one  day  he 
saw  Miss  Sarah  Elizabeth  Ellison  riding  on  horseback 
from  her  father's  plantation  into  Winnsboro.  Hers  wa& 
a  handsome  face  and  figure,  and  she  wore  a  stylish  beaver 
riding  hat,  and  the  young  gallant  New  York  Irishman 
was  done  for. 

It  was  a  case  of  love  at  first  sight  with  my  father,  and 
I  am  sure  from  what  my  mother  has  told  me  that  she  also 
was  interested  at  first  sight.  But  when  he  called  to  make 
his  formal  proposal  he  met  with  an  unexpected  obstacle. 


22  MY  lAh'K  AND  TIMKS. 

The  yomia,'  ladyV  father  had  married  a  second  wife,  who 
proved  not  a  good  step-mother.  Miss  Sarah  was  in  the 
house,  but  happened  to  be  upstairs  inspecting  and  repair- 
ing some  damage  done  by  a  tame  squirrel  which  had  got 
into  her  drawer,  and  Step-mother  would  not  let  the  young 
man's  name  be  announced  to  her.  Thus,  placing  herself 
between  the  two  parties,  she  kept  the  young  man  mean- 
while in  ignorance  of  the  real  state  of  the  case.  After 
waiting  a  reasonable  time  to  see  his  lady  love,  but  in  vain, 
he  got  vexed  and  started  off,  being  heard  to  say,  ''If  I 
cannot  marry  where  affection  calls,  I  shall  go  to  Xew 
York  and  marry  where  duty  requires."  So  he  took  him- 
self off  in  a  hurry  right  down  to  Charleston.  The  young 
lady  became  aware  of  her  danger,  WTote  to  her  brother 
John,  then  a  merchant  in  Charleston,  and  explained  to 
him  the  part  her  step-mother  had  acted,  and  bid  him  go 
to  see  the  young  man  and  explain  matters.  He  soon 
found  him,  and  it  is  said  the  two  young  men  took  a  walk 
together  around  the  Tobacco  Inspection  Building,  then 
famous  in  Charleston,  and  it  was  not  long  before  he  was 
up  in  Winnsboro  again,  and  the  matter  was  peacefully 
and  pleasantly  settled. 

The  tobacco  crop  was  then  a  very  important  matter  in 
Charleston  commerce.  From  many  miles  around  the  city 
they  used  to  roll  in  the  big  hogsheads,  each  drawm  by  one 
horse.  It  became  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  public 
inspection  of  tobacco.  An  immense  shed  was  erected 
along  Hudson  street,  running  from  King  to  Meeting,  and 
co^;ering  all  the  ground  now  occupied  by  the  Citadel. 
This  was  sometimes  tilled  with  hogsheads  of  tobacco  wait- 
ing for  inspection  and  sail.  It  was  around  this  capacious 
mart  that  our  two  young  men  took  their  interesting  walk 
whilst  the  brother  skillfully  smoothed  away  the  offence 
his  sister  had  unwittingly  given. 

My  Mother's  Ancestry. 

Let  me  now  turn  and  attempt  to  give  an  account  of  my 
mother's  ancestry  on  her  father's  side.  I  have  before  me 
two  documents  containing  testimony  from  two  grandsons 
of  my  great-grandfather,  William  Ellison,  to-wit :  John, 
the  son  of  Robert  Ellison,  and  William,  the  son  of  John 


OUK  AXCESTKY.  23 

Ellison.  These  two  grandsons  were  men  of  abont  the 
same  age,  and  they  had  equal  opportunities  to  know^  of 
what  they  spoke.  The  former,  John  Ellison,  was  a  man 
of  excellent  sense  and  strict  integrity ;  the  other  also  was 
a  man  of  high  intelligence,  a  lawver  by  profession  and 
entirely  worthy  of  confidence.  They  differ  on  some 
points  which  only  establishes  their  truthfulness.  The 
former  gives  his  testimony  through  a  niece.  She  is  an 
educated  lady,  who  immediately  recorded  all  his  state- 
ments, except  two,  and  afterwards  got  him  to  repeat  them. 
But  my  cousin  William's  statements  are  made  from  mem- 
ory by  one  of  his  daughters,  Elizabeth  Martha,  in  one  of 
the  aforesaid  documents.  She  also  was  a  lady  of  high  in- 
telligence. Her  father  had  a  family  Bible  in  which  his 
father  had  written  a  ''history  of  the  family  in  many 
jiages."  This  was  consumed  when  his  dwelling  was  burnt. 
She  claims  to  remember  very  distinctly  the  facts  of  this 
narrative,  but  not  the  dates ;  but  she  says  her  father  had 
given  great  attention  to  the  family  history,  learning  it 
both  from  the  record  in  the  Bible  and  from  conversations 
with  his  father. 

Before  T  proceed  to  examine  these  two  lines  of  testi- 
mony, I  submit  two  preliminary  statements  furnished 
me  by  two  cousins,  devoted  to  antiquarian  researches. 
The  first  one  of  these  is  interesting,  though  it  does  not 
claim  any  great  importance.  It  runs  thus :  'Tn  Collins 
Peerage  of  England,  edition  of  1768,  Vol.  VII.,  p.  357, 
there  is  the  record  of  the  marriage  of  Robert  Ellison, 
Esq.,  of  Hepburn,  County  Durham,  England,  to  a  titled 
lady,  betW'Cen  1600-1700,  the  precise  date  not  given. 
This  is  valuable  as  showing  that  there  were  Ellisons  in 
Durham.    And  also  the  name  Robert  is  significant." 

The  second  statement  is  based  on  a  reference  to  "Los- 
sing's  Field  Book  of  the  Revolution,"  wdiere  mention  is 
made  of  two  Ellisons,  Jolm  and  William,  who  do  not 
seem,  however,  to  belong  to  our  immediate  family.  Their 
home  was  New  Windsor,  ]^ew  Jersey.  My  informant 
received  a  letter  from  one  of  their  descendants  in  Xew 
Jersey,  which  says,  "The  names  Andrew^,  William, 
Robert  and  John  were  peculiar  to  the  Ellison  family  of 
Durham,    and    in    the    old    cemetery    there    you    would 


24  MY  LIFE  AyiB  TIMES. 

find  those  names  on  the  old  tombstones."  lie  had  lately 
visited  the  place.  His  grandfather  was  an  Andrew  Elli- 
son. Here  we  have  a  statement  that  is  direct  and  very 
important. 

I  now  introduce  an  item  of  Uncle  John  Ellison's  testi- 
mony confirmatory  of  the  statement  above  given.  He 
tells  his  niece,  "Our  forefathers  went  from  England  to 
Ireland  during  one  of  the  persecutions."  Thus  John  be- 
gins his  account,  not  with  his  grandfather,  William  Elli- 
son, in  17-14,  but  with  our  forefathers.  Yet  when  he 
speaks  of  his  grandfather's  settlement  in  Ireland,  he 
places  it  in  County  xVntrim, 

Cousin  William  Ellison,  who  was  popularly  known  as 
Lawyer  Billy  Ellison,  practised  law  in  Camden,  and  also 
in  Chester,  before  he  settled  at  what  became  his  life's 
home,  on  Dutchman's  Creek,  Fairfield  county.  He  be- 
gins his  testimony,  as  it  is  written  by  his  daughter,  thus : 
^'I  have  many  times  heard  from  my  father  that  the  Elli- 
sons were  landed  proprietors  with  considerable  property 
living  on  the  borders  between  two  coimties  in  Ireland,  but 
the  names  of  their  residences  I  have  forgotten,  though  it 
was  mentioned  in  that  Bible.  They  were  called  Lairds.'^ 
I  take  it  these  two  counties  w^ere  Derry  and  Antrim. 

Uncle  John's  statement  about  our  forefathers  may  be 
very  easily  understood  as  running  back  a  half  century  or 
more.  This  would  bring  us  to  the  time  of  the  siege  of 
Londonderry  in  1689.  Macaulay  tells  us  (Vol.  III.,  page 
115)  how,  M'lien  the  Irish  army  were  first  seen  approach- 
ing, and  thirteen  Scotch  apprentices  had  seized  the  keys 
and  closed  the  gates  of  the  terrified  city,  "messengers 
were  sent,  under  cover  of  the  following  night,  to  the 
Protestant  gentlemen  of  the  neighboring  counties.  .  .  . 
The  Protestants  of  the  iieighborhood  promptly  obeyed  the 
summons  of  Londonderry.  Within  forty-eight  hours  hun- 
dreds of  horse  and  foot  came  by  various  roads  to  the  city.'^ 
Thus  the  number  of  men  within  the  walls  was  increased 
to  seven  thousand.  I  would  be  glad  to  know  positively 
\vhat  I  am  quite  prepared  to  believe,  that  our  Ellison 
''forefathers''  were  among  the  first  to  give  this  response. 
But  of  another  thing  I  do  feel  very  sure,  namely,  that 
after  Major  Pobert  Ellison  had  given  his  daughter  Sarah 


OUE  ANCESTEY.  25 

Elizabeth  to  the  young  man  who  had  asked  for  her,  he 
would  often  make  him  sit  down  while  he  told  him  not  only 
all  about  what  he  himself  had  done  and  suffered  in  the 
Revolutionary  war,  but  also  all  that  he  had  heard  his 
father  tell  about  what  had  been  done  by  our  "forefathers" 
and  others  at  the  siege  of  Londonderry  and  the  battle  of 
the  Boyne.  He  w^ould  thus  be  all  the  better  prepared  to 
say  to  his  grown-up  daughter,  when  he  had  one,  that  it 
was  honor  enough  for  her  that  her  ''forefathers"  had 
fought  at  Derry. 

Lawj'er  William's  daughter  says,  "I  think  that  our 
great-grandparents  were  dead  when  the  Irish  rebellion 
commenced."  Probably  they  were.  The  Irish  rebellion 
was  in  1798.  They  removed  from  Ireland  to  America 
fifty-four  years  before  the  Irish  rebellion  and  very  prob- 
ably were  dead  w^hen  that  event  occurred.  But  she  goes 
on  to  say,  ''There  was  an  elder  brother  who  was  the  head 
of  the"  family  and  took  j)art  in  that  rebellion.  He  was 
executed  when  Lord  Fitzgerald  died,  and  the  family 
property  was  confiscated  by  the  English  government." 
Here  again,  of  course,  is  another  mistake.  Lord  Edward 
Eitzgerald  did  head  the  Irish  rebellion  in  1798,  but  the 
elder  brother  must  have  lived  long  before  1798  or  1744 
either.  Here  comes  in  an  item  of  Uncle  John's  testimony, 
who  told  his  niece  that  "some  of  our  forefathers  engaged 
in  the  wars  against  William  the  Conqueror."  Of  course, 
here  is  a  lapsus  linguae  of  the  old  man  or  a  lapsus  pennae 
of  the  young  lady.  He  meant  to  say  William  of  Orange. 
But  the  mistake  is  of  slight  importance,  while  the  fact 
which  is  stated  is  very  important.  Some  of  our  fore- 
fathers fought  for  William  the  Third  in  his  Irish  battles, 
but  some  of  these  forefathers  of  ours  were  loyal  to  King 
James  and  fought  for  him.  It  is  generally  so ;  war 
divides  families,  puts  brothers  on  one  side  and  brothers  on 
the  other — equally  honorable  it  frequently  is  to  be  on 
either  side.  It  is  even  quite  possible  that  some  of  our 
forefathers  who  did  not  actually  fight  for  King  James 
sympathized  strongly  with  the  men  of  that  side ;  har- 
bored them,  concealed  them  when  pursued,  and  so  became 
involved  actually,  though  not  formally,  in  rebellion 
against  King  William,  so  that  their  landed  estates  and 


2G  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

other  property  were  all  confiscated  by  King  William's 
government.  But  here  comes  a  positive  statement  attrib- 
nted  to  "Lawyer  William."  "My  father  told  me  that  his 
nncle,  who  was  executed,  was  a  man  of  culture  and  educa- 
tion." Well,  her  father  did  not  say  he  was  executed  for 
taking  ])art  in  the  Irish  rebellion.  He  was  too  intelligent 
and  well-read  to  have  made  such  a  misstatement  about  that 
rebellion.  Moreover,  it  was  not  possible  that  any  uncle  of 
his  could  have  been  in  that  rebellion.  His  uncles  and  his 
grandfather  were  all  off  to  America  fifty-four  years  before 
the  rebellion.  His  daughter  did  not  correctly  understand 
what  he  said.  He  must  have  used  the  word  uncle  in  a 
very  wide  sense ;  he  might  have  meant  to  say  that  some 
grand  uncle  of  his  amongst  "those  forefathers"  of  whom 
TTncle  John  speaks,  a  man  of  culture  and  education,  was 
executed  for  being  somehow  drawn  in  amongst  the  op- 
posers  of  William  of  Orange. 

ISTow  we  are  prepared  to  hear  what  these  two  grandsons 
tell  about  the  emigration  from  Ireland  to  Pennsylvania 
and  to  South  Carolina. 

First,  we  have  from  the  written  document  of  Lawyer 
Billy  Ellison's  daughter,  the  following  statement:  "My 
grandfather  was  only  fifteen  years  of  age  when  they  emi- 
grated to  America  and  settled  in  Pennsylvania.  He,  with 
his  brother  Bobert,  came  to  South  Carolina,  and  bought 
lands  in  Fairfield  District, '  and  lived  there  until  they 
died.  My  grandfather  married  his  first  wife,  Mary 
Byers,  the  sister  of  ^Mrs.  Rachel  Milligan,  of  Charleston ; 
she  died  a  few  days  after  the  birth  of  an  infant  daughter, 
Mary  Byers  Ellison.  Mrs.  Robert  Ellison  took  the  infant 
and  nursed  it  with  her  son  John  Ellison,  nearly  the  same 
age.  Previous  to  moving  to  the  up-country,  my  grand- 
father John  married  again  in  Charleston,  his  second  wife 
Elizabeth  McCormick,  my  father's  mother.  My  father 
was  known  as  Lawyer  Billy  Ellison.  My  grandfather 
survived  his  second  wife  some  years,  and  married  a  third 
wife,  who  was  a  widow,  Mrs.  Harrison,  the  mother  of 
Cousin  Mary  Ellison,  whom  you  know  as  the  wife  of  your 
LTncle  William  Ellison,  who  lived  at  the  old  [Robert] 
Ellison  homestead  in  Fairfield  District.  IS'either  my 
father  nor  his  sister   [half-sister,  Mary  Byers  Ellison, 


OUR  AlVCESTEY,  27 

wife  of  Austin  Peay]  spoke  of  any  sisters  of  their  father, 
that  is,  any  sisters  of  John  or  Robert  Ellison." 

Secondly,  we  have  an  account  of  the  emigration  and 
subsequent  historv  given  l)y  my  uncle  John  Ellison  as 
carefully  written  down  by  his  niece.  "Your  great-grand- 
father William  Ellison,  with  his  family  of  four  sons  and 
one  daughter,  moved  from  County  iVntrim,  Ireland,  to 
Pennsylvania  in  l7-i4.  Having  moderate  means,  he  left 
but  little  to  his  children.  He  and  his  wife  are  buried  in 
Pennsylvania. 

''William,  Andrew,  John  and  Robert  and  one  daughter 
moved  to  Fairfield,  S.  C,  after  the  death  of  their  parents. 
William  and  Andrew  lived  bachelors,  and  the  daughter 
married  Mr.  McAllister,  of  South  Carolina. 

"Robert  Ellison,  your  grandfather,  was  born  in  County 
Antrim,  Ireland,  1742,  and  was  about  nineteen  years  of 
age  when  he  moved  from  Pennsylvania  to  Fairfield,  S.  C. 
Having  a  good  English  education,  he  soon  secured  the 
position  of  surveyor,  obtained  lands  and  other  property. 
He  married  Elizabeth  Potts,  of  Charleston,  j^ovember  6, 
1772,  settled  on  his  farm,  two  miles  from  Winnsboro, 
volunteered  in  the  Revolutionary  war.  A  man  of  indom- 
itable will  and  energy,  he  organized  forthwith  a  company, 
of  which  he  was  captain,  under  General  Moultrie,  fought 
boldly,  was  promoted  to  major.  At  Stono  his  horse 
was  killed  under  him.  In  the  retreat  from  Augusta  to 
Charleston  under  Moultrie  (British  under  Lord  Rawdon) 
he  was  daily  engaged  in  skirmishes.  The  American  army 
reached  Charleston  first,  but  he,  while  skirmishing,  was 
taken  prisoner,  carried  to  Charleston,  then  to  John's  Is- 
land, then  to  the  Dry  Tortugas,  and  cruelly  treated  for 
two  years.  His  wife,  alone  and  unprotected  with  five 
children,  was  molested  by  the  depredations  of  the  Tories, 
depriving  her  of  everything,  tore  her  hair  by  the  roots, 
which  mark  she  bore  through  life.  She,  upon  little  pack 
horses,  with  her  little  ones  and  Xewry,  an  old  servant,  left 
for  Charleston,  hoping  to  find  protection  in  her  relatives. 
The  old  servant,  Xewry,  persuaded  his  wife,  children  and 
other  servants,  Londonderry  and  Belfast,  to  follow  him 
and  serve  the  family  at  the  camps.  He  travelled,  keeping 
vratch,  all    concealiuii:    themselves    in    the  woods  at  the 


28  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

glimpse  of  any  one  in  the  rear  or  front  of  them.  Newry 
travelled  ahead,  procuring  provisions,  and  met  them  at 
camp  at  night.  xVfter  reaching  Charleston  your  grand- 
mother hired  out  these  servants  for  her  support. 

"She  had  left  her  house  in  charge  of  a  hired  man,  Avho 
was  attacked  by  the  Tories.  He  jumped  from  a  window 
where  sat  a  Tory  on  watch ;  in  his  escape  he  was  cut  on 
the  head,  and  he  affected  to  be  dying,  when  some  ex- 
claimed, 'Kill  him,  kill  him  !'  Others  cried,  'It  is  a  shame 
to  shoot  a  dying  man  !'  and  thus  he  made  his  escape,  after- 
wards was  seen  and  recognized  by  the  family,  but  the 
house  was  burned.  After  the  declaration  of  peace,  she 
returned  to  her  own  home,  her  neighbors  building  her  a 
house  and  caring  for  her,  until  your  grandfather  was  re- 
leased from  prison. 

"Your  grandmother  died  on  January  15,  1793.  Your 
grandfather  married  again,  Jennie  Seawright.  The  chil- 
dren left  home  early  in  years.  Your  grandfather  died 
March  8,  1806,  and  is  buried  alongside  of  his  wife,  and 
with  his  three  brothers  in  the  family  burial  ground  on  the 
old  homestead,  two  miles  from  Winnsboro.  My  two 
brothers,  "William  and  James  Ellison,  early  went  with  me 
to  Charleston,  where  when  quite  a  youth  I  entered  the 
house  of  Lesesne  &  Co.,  as  clerk,  and  subsequently  became 
a  dry-goods  merchant,  in  King  street,  near  Broad." 

During  this  last-named  period  my  uncle  John  was 
married  to  Miss  Susannah  Milligan,  of  Charleston. 

Eespecting  Kobert  Ellison's  being  taken  prisoner  by 
the  British,  a  family  tradition  is  that  he  was  confined  in 
one  of  the  vaults  under  the  old  post-office  building,  in  com- 
pany with  Colonel  Hayne,  who  was  afterwards  hanged ; 
also,  that  he  was  offered  release  if  he  would  take  the  oath 
of  allegiance,  which  he  refused  ;  also,  that  part  of  his  con- 
finement was  on  board  a  British  prison-ship  in  the  harbor 
of  Charleston.  Another  of  our  family  traditions  is  that 
when  our  grandmother  reached  Charleston  with  her  five 
children,  she  interviewed  the  British  commander  and 
pleaded  that,  as  he  had  her  husband  in  confinement  and 
her  property  all  destroyed  by  the  Tories,  he  ought  to  issue 
rations  for  her  and  her  children.     Her  plea  prevailed. 

In  1777  the  famous  Mt.  Zion  Society  was  organized  in 


OUR  AIS^CESTEY.  29 

Cliarleston.  Its  first  president  was  Colonel  John  Winn, 
and  its  wardens  General  William  Strotliers  and  Captain 
Eobert  Ellison.  It  began  with  a  membership  of  fifty- 
eight.  Among  its  members  in  the  second  year  we  find  the 
names  of  Andrew  Pickens,  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney 
and  Wade  Hampton.  In  1779  two  hnndred  and  sixty- 
four  names  were  found  on  its  roll.  The  object  of  this 
society  was  to  promote  the  education  of  the  young  men  of 
the  State,  and  its  success  was  great.  The  centre  of  it  came 
to  be  transferred  to  Winnsboro,  and  Captain  Eobert  Elli- 
son was  one  of  its  chief  promoters.  It  is  of  record  that 
in  1784  he  rode  to  Rowan,  X.  C,  to  persuade  the  Rev. 
Thomas  H.  McCaule,  who  was  a  distinguished  Presbyte- 
rian minister  and  graduate  of  Princeton  College,  to  be- 
•come  the  president  of  Mt.  Zion  Academy.  Under  his  ad- 
ministration it  became  a  college,  and  finally,  in  some 
sense,  there  grew  out  of  it  the  South  Carolina  College  at 
(yolumbia. 

Hitherto  we  have  considered  family  records  and  family 
traditions.  Let  us  now  look  into  Bishop  Gregg's  ad- 
mirable History  of  the  Old  Chemws,  where  we  shall  find 
frequent  reference  to  Robert  Ellison,  as  playing  a  very 
important  part  in  that  portion  of  the  State.  By  referring 
to  the  map,  which  Bislio])  Gregg  gives  of  the  old  Cheraws, 
we  shall  see  that  the  old  Cheraws  District  covered  the 
counties  now  kno^vn  as  Marlborough,  Chesterfield,  Dar- 
lington, Williamsburg,  Clarendon,  Sumter  and  Kershaw, 
and  touched  what  is  now  kno^^^l  as  Chester  and  Fairfield 
counties.  This  Cheraws  District  was  divided,  after  the 
Revolution,  into  three  portions  known  as  Chesterfield, 
Marlborough  and  Darlington ;  but  I  cannot  think  that 
these  were  the  same  as  the  counties  now  bearing  those 
names.  The  first  mention  which  Bishop  Gregg  makes  of 
Robert  Ellison  is  in  reference  to  a  petition  which  the  said 
Robert  Ellison  presented  to  the  Legislature  of  South  Car- 
olina, meeting  in  January,  1783.  "On  the  24th  of  Feb- 
ruary the  petition  of  Robert  Ellison  was  read,  setting 
forth  that  he  was  an  officer  in  the  militia  before  the  fall 
of  Charlestown,  and  always  exerted  himself  in  the  service 
of  America — that  he  was  made  a  prisoner  in  Camden, 
and  confined  on  James  Island  under  very  unhappy  cir- 


30  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

ciimstanecs,  and  therefore  prayed  relief  from  the  penalties 
of  an  aet  for  amercing  certain  persons  therein  men- 
tioned, etc.  The  case  of  ]\Ir.  Ellison  seems  to  have  been 
misunderstood.  He  was  consequently  relieved,  and  con- 
tinued to  enjoy  the  confidence  and  esteem  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  to  the  close  of  his  useful  life."    (Page  416.) 

Another  mention  by  Bishop  Gregg  of  Robert  Ellison  is 
the  statement  that  at  the  JSTovember  election  in  1788  for 
the  Parish  of  St.  David's,  Morgan  Brown  was  returned 
as  Senator,  and  Robert  Ellison,  with  sundry  other  per- 
sons, as  Representatives.  (Page  448.) 

Another  mention  of  Robert  Ellison  is  when  he  was 
elected,  with  others,  a  delegate  from  St.  David's  Parish  to 
a  convention,  meeting  in  Columbia,  on  the  second  Mon- 
day in  May,  1790,  to  consider  the  question  of  a  new  State 
constitution.  This  convention  met  in  due  time.  The  new 
constitution  was  adopted  on  the  3d  of  June.  It  gave  the 
counties  of  ^Marlborough,  Chesterfield  and  Darlington  two 
representatives  each,  and  for  the  three,  two  senators.  At 
the  ensuing  election,  Morgan  Brown  and  Robert  Ellison 
were  returned  Senators.     (Pages  450-451.) 

Again  in  January,  1791,  he  is  elected  by  the  Leo'isla- 
ture  a  county  court  judge  for  Darlington.    (Page  452.) 

In  October,  1792  he  is  re-elected  Senator.  (Page 
454.) 

This  year  the  Legislature  meets  on  the  4th  of  Novem- 
ber, and  on  the  3d  of  December  he  presents  a  petition 
praying  for  relief  to  sundry  persons  unable  to  meet  their 
payment  of  the  "paper  medium  loan,"  by  reason  of  ex- 
traordinary droughts  and  freshets,  which  ruined  their 
crops.  This  petition  is  referred  to  a  committee  consisting 
of  himself  and  Generals  Barnwell  and  Pinckney.  The 
report  was  favorable,  and  a  bill  passed  in  accordance 
therewith.  At  the  session  of  the  followin<i'  year,  1793, 
he  was  elected  sheriff  for  Cheraws.  In  1795  he  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  Legislature  colonel  of  the  Thirty-eighth 
Regiment  of  Militia.    (Pages  455  and  457.) 

The  last  references  in  Gregg's  history  to  the  then  ( \)1- 
onel  Robert  Ellison  are  on  pages  4G0  and  461,  when  he 
was  appointed  by  the  Legislature  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners to  run  out  the  line  between  Chesterfield  and  Dar- 


OUR  ANCESTRY.  31 

lingtoii,  and  also  one  of  the  commissioners  to  rebuild  the 
conrt-house  at  Darlington. 

Now,  as  to  all  these  statements  which  I  have  taken  from 
Bishop  Gregg's  history,  some  difficnlties  occur  to  my 
mind. 

I  am  wondering  how  such  a  man  as  Robert  Ellison 
could  have  been  pointed  at  by  the  Legislature  as  worthy 
of  being  publicly  amerced.  But  let  it  be  observed  that 
Major  Ellison  was  captured  at  Camden,  taken  a  prisoner 
to  Charleston,  offered  a  parole,  which  Colonel  Hayne  took 
and  Ellison  refused,  and  Ellison  was  then  carried  to 
James  Island,  and  was  also  on  the  prison-ship  in  Charles- 
ton harbor,  and  finally  a  prisoner  at  St.  Augustine,  Fla., 
according  to  Moultrie,  for  three  years.  In  the  meantime 
his  property  in  Fairfield  was  abandoned,  his  wife  and 
children  had  gone  to  Charleston,  then  in  the  hands  of  the 
English,  and  had  received  for  a  long  time  rations  from 
the  British  commander,  and  all  of  this  had  to  be  ex- 
plained. It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  there  was  a  special 
act  directed  against  Ellison,  but  he  came  under  a  general 
act,  his  property  having  been  confiscated  because  of  his 
long  absence,  and  his  family  moving  to  Charleston  under 
circumstances  stated. 

Again,  it  might  seem  strange  that  in  his  petition  for 
relief  he  only  mentions  James  Island  as  the  place  of  his 
suffering,  whereas  the  family  traditions  affirm  that  he 
suffered  imprisonment  in  other  places.  But  then  Gregg 
does  not  profess  to  give  all  of  Ellison's  petition  to  the 
Legislature,  but  only  a  synopsis  of  it.  We  do  not  know 
ho\\'  much  of  detail  Ellison  put  into  his  petition. 

Once  more,  it  looks  strange  at  first  sight  that  Robert 
Ellison,  returning  to  his  farm  after  his  liberation  from 
prison,  should  so  soon  afterwards  be  found,  according  to 
Bishop  Gregg,  as  filling  various  public  offices  away  over 
in  Darlington.  Moreover,  it  is  of  public  record  at  Winns- 
boro  how  he  was  in  Fairfield  in  1788,  when  he  and  his 
wife  sold  one  of  her  grants  of  land,  their  oldest  child,  Su- 
sannah, being  one  of  the  witnesses  to  the  deed,  all  of  which 
raises  a  presumption  that  he  and  his  family  were  then 
dwelling  at  their  home  in  Fairfield.  Still  further,  in 
1799,  when  he  seems  to  have  finished  his  career  in  Dar- 


32  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

liiigton,  his  two  oldest  sons  were  grown  up  young  men. 
And  how  are  we  to  account  for  it  that  neither  John  Ellison 
nor  Lawyer  Billy  Ellison,  in  speaking  to  their  children 
about  the  family  history,  should  never  have  spoken  of  their 
father  or  grandfather  having  lived  or  held  public  office  in 
the  eastern  part  of  the  State  ?  But  when  we  carefully  con- 
sider the  geography  of  South  Carolina  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  ago,  these  difficulties  lose  their  force.  We 
must  not  confound  the  Darlington  of  that  time  with  the 
Darlington  of  the  present  date.  It  was  then  no  great 
distance  from  Fairheld  to  Darlington.  The  Darlington 
of  that  day  embraced  both  Kershaw  and  Sumter  counties, 
and  Kershaw  borders  on  Fairfield.  By  referring  to  the 
map  in  Gregg's  History  of  the  Cheraws,  it  will  appear 
that  the  Cheraws  District  covered  the  counties  now  kno\vn 
as  Marlboro,  Chesterfield,  Darlington,  Williamsburg, 
Clarendon,  Sumter  and  Kershaw,  and  touched  what  are 
now  known  as  Chester  and  Fairfield  counties.  Camden, 
the  county  toAvn  of  Kershaw  county,  is  only  thirty  miles 
from  Winnsboro,  the  county  to^vn  of  Fairfield.  So  that 
IVtajor  Ellison  might  live  near  Winnsboro  and  yet,  in 
those  days  of  horse-back  riding,  might  do  business  in 
parts  of  Darlington  without  inflicting  very  grievous  al)- 
scnces  upon  his  family.  Let  me  add  that  my  grand- 
mother's boys  did  not  like  their  step-mother,  and,  as  my 
Uncle  John  Ellison  testifies,  they  departed  from  their 
paternal  home,  and  found  employment  elsewhere  in  their 
very  early  years. 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  remains  to  be  said  about  my 
m.other's  ancestry  on  her  mother's  side.  It  will  be  very 
little. 

Elizabeth  Potts  was  the  daughter  of  Thomas  Potts.  In 
the  Secretary  of  State's  office  in  Columbia,  there  is  record 
of  grants  of  land  made  to  him  by  the  British  government 
as  early  as  1732.  Such  grants  were  continually  made  l)y 
thf  British  government  to  encourage  emigration  to  their 
colonies  in  this  then  forest  country.  These  grants  were 
Tisually  of  one  hundred  acres  each,  the  commissioners  no 
doubt  considering  that  one  hundred  acres  would  consti- 
tute a  ])retty  good  farm,  as  it  does  in  England. 

The  record  in  the  Secretary  of  State's  office  referred  to 
above  of  grants  of  land  to  Thomas  Potts  is  as  follows : 


OUR  ANCESTRY.  33 

Elizabeth  Potts,  grant  100  acres,  date  December,  ITT-i; 
George  Potts,  grant  100  acres,  date  December,  1753  and 
1772;  James  Potts,  grant  100  acres,  date  December, 
1775;  Jeremiah  Potts,  grant  100  acres,  date  December, 
1762 ;  John  Potts,  grant  100  acres,  date  December, 
1767-68  and  '69 ;  Kobert  Potts,  grant  100  acres,  date 
December,  '66,  '68  and  '81 ;  Sarah  Potts,  grant  100  acres, 
df.te  December,  '68. 

Then  comes  the  name  of  Thomas  Potts,  opposite  to 
v;hich  it  is  written  1782  to  1736  several  grants,  and  im- 
mediately under  this  is  again  the  name  of  Thomas  Potts, 
opposite  to  which  is  again  written  1759-1770  several 
grants. 

There  is  recorded  in  the  clerk's  office  at  Winnsboro, 
Pairfield  District,  a  conveyance  to  Valentine  Rochel  of 
one  hundred  acres  of  land  by  Robert  Ellison  and  his  wife 
Elizabeth  Ellison  [late  Elizabeth  Potts],  the  said  land 
being  an  original  grant  to  Elizabeth  Potts  dated  4th  day 
of  May,  1775. 

Witness  to  deed,  Susannah  Potts  Ellison  and  James 
Linn. 

The  date  of  this  deed  is  December  10,  1788. 

There  is  a  Captain  Richard  Matchett  living  nine  miles 
from  Winnsboro.  In  this  year  of  grace  1897  he  is  eighty- 
four  years  of  age.  Gentlemen  writing  me  from  Fairfield 
speak  of  him  as  "a  fine  old  gentleman  of  the  Irish  style," 
and  of  "the  highest  character,  venerated  and  beloved  by 
everybody."  This  old  gentleman  testifies  that  his  mother 
■\^'as  a  McGrady,  and  her  mother  an  Alexander,  and  her 
m.other  a  Potts,  and  that  she  was  a  sister  of  the  Elizabeth 
Potts  who  married  my  grandfather  Robert  Ellison.  This 
sister  died  in  Ireland,  but  her  father  and  the  rest  of  his 
family  came  direct  to  South  Carolina.  Captain  Matchett 
also  speaks  of  a  grand  uncle  of  his  own,  by  name  James 
Alexander,  who  was  a  merchant  in  Charleston,  became 
rich  and  went  back  to  Ireland.  William  and  John  Elli- 
son, sons  of  my  grandfather  Robert  Ellison,  while  still 
very  young  on  their  first  removal  from  home  to  Charles- 
ton, clerked  awhile  for  their  cousin  James  Alexander. 

This  old  Captain  Matchett  was  one  of  a  company  of 
emigrants  from  the  north  of  Ireland,   who  arrived  in 


34  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Charleston  in  IS 20.  I  remember  how  niy  father  met 
them  on  the  wharf,  and  took  them  all  to  his  house  until 
wagons  could  be  procured  to  haul  them  and  their  belong- 
ings up  to  Fairfield  county,  where  they  settled  on  the 
lands  of  Kobert  Ellison  and  William  Adger.  Captain 
Matchett  frequently  speaks  of  my  father's  hospitality  and 
kind  assistance. 

Upon  his  testimony  I  think  it  is  very  clear  and  certain 
that  my  mother's  ancestry,  on  her  mother's  side,  came 
directly  from  the  north  of  Ireland  to  this  country  as  early 
at  least  as  1732. 

I  return  now  to  what  followed  my  father's  engagement 
to  Miss  Sarah  Ellison.  Having  completed  this  important 
affair  on  which  so  much  of  the  happiness  of  his  life  was 
to  depend  he  now  prepares  to  return  to  Charleston,  and 
Mr.  Samuel  Bones,  a  kinsman  of  my  grandmother's,  was 
to  accompany  him.  They  were  to  begin  business  together 
as  cotton  buyers.  There  was  only  a  weekly  stage  from 
Columbia  to  Charleston,  and  rather  than  wait  they  agreed 
to  foot  it.  But  the  country  being  flat  there  were  gather- 
ings of  water  on  the  road  sometimes  a  foot  deep.  Mr. 
Bones  had  recently  arrived  from  Ireland,  and  the  voyage 
as  usual  in  those  days  being  very  long,  his  blood  had  be- 
come disordered,  and  he  hesitated  about  walking  through 
the  water.  My  father  said,  "Come  along.  Bones,  and  you 
shall  ride  on  my  back."  He  was  a  great  big  Irishman 
over  six  feet  high,  and  actually  did  ride  on  his  friend's 
shoulders  whenever  they  had  to  pass  through  water.  They 
began  business  at  the  corner  of  King  street  and  Burns' 
Lane  (Blackbird  Alley),  and  many  were  the  bags  of  cot- 
ton they  bought  that  year,  when  that  trade  was  in  its  early 
infancy,  and  many  a  night  after  a  hard  day's  work  did 
the_\  sleep  on  a  cotton  bag  for  a  bed.  They  began  business 
under  the  name  of  Bones  &  Adger,  and  people  used  to 
laugh  and  call  them  Bones  and  Anhles. 

Subsequently  when  he  had  left  his  cotton  buying  busi- 
ness in  Charleston  to  visit  his  fiancee,  and  was  returning 
he  left  Columbia  on  a  spirited  young  black  horse.  Sev- 
eial  merchants  of  that  city  requested  him  to  take  charge 
of  packages  of  bank  bills  to  be  conveyed  to  Charleston. 
Az  that  early  day  they  had  not  the  present  facilities  for 


OUR  ANCESTRY.  35 

transmitting  money.  He  set  out  on  horseback  alone  with 
his  saddle-bags  somewhat  stufied  with  these  packages. 
His  horse  took  fright  at  a  dead  alligator  lying  in  one  of 
the  water  ponds  on  the  road,  mentioned  above,  and  he  was 
thrown  over  the  animal's  head  into  the  water,  the  horse 
taking  to  his  heels  in  the  woods.  My  father  had  not  long 
passed  a  house  on  the  roadside.  He  went  back  and  the 
^^•oman  of  the  house  dried  his  clothes  by  her  fire,  he  mean- 
while covered  up  in  bed,  and  her  husband  started  in  search 
o^'  the  horse.  But  he  had  not  been  long  gone  when  it  first 
came  to  my  father's  mind  that  he  had  those  packages  of 
money  in  his  saddle-bags,  and  they  open — not  locked. 
The  idea  of  their  possible  loss  in  those  woods,  or  being 
st(tlen,  and  he  so  great  a  stranger  in  Charleston,  threw  him 
into  a  cold  sweat.  Every  now  and  then  he  would  sing  out 
to  the  woman,  "Is  your  husband  coming  f  and  she  would 
look  down  the  road,  and  answer,  "No."  At  last  her  an- 
s^^er  was,  "Yes,  he  is  coming,  but  he  has  not  got  the 
horse."  He  came  bringing  the  saddle-bags,  saddle  and 
bridle.  He  had  searched  the  woods  in  vain  for  a  long 
time,  and  at  last  found  that  the  horse,  almost  as  soon  as 
he  entered  the  forest,  had  fallen  and  broken  his  neck.  My 
father  said  that  he  rammed  his  hand  down  into  the  saddle- 
bags, and  finding  all  right  there,  was  inexpressibly  re- 
lieved and  felt  little  concern  about  the  dead  horse. 

Resuming  his  cotton  buying,  he  bethought  him  of  a 
paper  given  to  him  by  his  old  friend  and  quasi  father,  Mr. 
John  Bailey,  of  New  York,  when  he  left  'New  York  in 
charge  of  the  supercargo,  and  the  ship  of  iron  ware.  It 
was  a  note  for  $600,  due  to  Mr.  Bailey  by  some  person  in 
Charleston,  which  had  been  long  overdue,  and,  as  was  sup- 
posed, would  never  be  collected.  Mr.  Bailey  said,  "Here^ 
Jemmy,  take  this  and  collect  it  for  yourself  if  you  can." 
He  took  the  note  to  a  young  lawyer  of  the  name  of  Cheves, 
who  had  associated  with  himself  a  Mr.  Peace,  and  was 
just  commencing  practice  at  the  Charleston  bar.  He  said 
to  Mr.  Cheves,  "If  you  collect  this  note,  you  shall  have 
the  half  of  it  for  your  trouble."  Calling  after  some  time 
to  inquire  about  the  note,  ]\[r.  Peace,  who  was  in  the  front 
apartment  of  the  oftice,  was  proceeding  to  count  out  and 
hand  over  to  him  the  $000.     He  said  to  Mr.  Peace,  "But 


S6  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

my  agreement  with  Mr.  Clieves  was  that  I  was  only  to  re- 
ceive the  half  of  this  money."  The  senior  partner,  who 
sat  writing  in  the  back  room  with  the  door  open,  over- 
heard what  was  said.  He  called  out,  "Mr.  Peace,  take 
$20  from  Mr.  Adger,  which  is  our  legitimate  fee,  and  pay 
him  the  rest  of  the  money."  Such  was  the  beginning  of 
the  honorable  and  splendid  career  of  Langdon  Cheves,  a 
nptive-born  citizen  of  South  Carolina.  ISTeither  party  to 
this  transaction  had  the  idea  that  a  grandson  of  the  one 
should  marry  a  granddaughter  of  the  other. 

My  parents  were  married  in  1806,  and  moved  to 
CJiarleston,  living  first  in  Boundary  street,  in  a  wooden 
house  next  to  the  present  Zion  church  building,  put  up  for 
Dr.  Girardeau's  congregation.  Thence,  after  awhile,  my 
father  moved  to  Xo.  2  of  the  Brownlee  Row  in  King 
street.  There  he  began  to  carry  on  the  hardware  business 
under  the  firm  name  of  James  Adger  &  Co.  In  1818  he 
foimed  the  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Alexander  Brown,  of 
Baltimore,  and  his  son  James  Bro"svn,  of  Xew  York ;  he 
w^ent  on  to  England,  where  he  met  Mr.  William  Brown, 
and  proceeded  to  the  north  of  Ireland  to  visit  his  old 
home.  This  visit  resulted  in  his  becoming  connected  in 
hiisiness  with  Alexander  BroA^Ti  &  Sons,  of  Baltimore; 
John  A.  Brown  &  Co.,  of  Philadelphia ;  Bro^m  Brothers 
&  Co.,  of  ]^ew  York,  and  William  and  James  Bro^\^l  & 
Co.,  of  Liverpool.  He  was  a  great  favorite  with  old  Mr. 
Alexander  BroAvn,  and  he  became  the  agent  of  the  Bro^vTis 
in  Charleston.  They  had  but  lately  commenced  their 
magnificent  commercial  career,  and  his  connection  with 
them  was  the  real  foundation  of  his  own  fortune.  He  at 
once  committed  his  hardware  business  in  King  street  to 
the  hands  of  some  subordinates,  and  established  himself 
on  Magwood  wharf  and  commenced  the  commission  and 
factorage  business,  also  buying  and  selling  exchange  for 
the  Bro^ATis.  After  some  years  he  paid  a  second  visit  to 
the  north  of  Ireland,  and  brought  l)ack  with  him  Mr. 
James  Black,  who  had  connections  with  the  linen  manu- 
factories of  that  region.  The  firm  then  became  Adger  & 
Black ;  but  after  a  very  few  years  my  father  preferred  to 
have  a  dissolution  of  the  concern.  He  then  lu'ought  his 
hardware  business  down  to  East  Bay,  thus  uniting  his 


OUE  ANCESTRY.  3T 

forces.  Subseqnentlj  he  purchased  the  wharves,  which 
stijl  bear  his  name.  About  the  year  1838  his  health  failed 
tor  some  years,  the  effect  of  a  severe  cold  taken  when  with 
me  in  Ireland.  But  he  again  recovered  his  vigor.  As 
previously  to  this  date  he  had  had  much  to  do  with  the 
origination  of  the  old  South  Carolina  Railroad,  the  first 
rf  jlroad  of  any  length  ever  attempted  in  this  country  or 
the  world,  so  after  this  period  he  set  on  foot  the  line  of 
steamers  between  Charleston  and  ISTew  York  which  did  so 
much  in  building  up  the  commerce  of  our  city.  About  the 
year  1847  he  began  to  execute  his  plan  of  placing  a  stone 
front  to  both  his  south  and  north  wharf.  Many  practical 
men  said  it  would  certainly  be  a  failure,  those  immense 
granite  rocks  would  have  no  suitable  foundation  in  the  old 
palmetto  piles  down  in  the  mud  and  the  whole  structure 
would  have  to  fall  in  the  water  before  it  was  even  finished. 
But  there  it  stands  to  this  day  a  monument  to  his  sound 
judgment  and  practical  wisdom,  as  well  as  to  his  courage 
and  energv. 

The  married  life  of  my  parents  extended  a  little  beyond 
their  golden  wedding  day.  Their's  was  indeed  a  golden 
marriage.  I  never  saw  or  heard  of  anything,  but  love  and 
kindness  betwixt  them  during  all  the  fifty-two  years  of 
their  union.  My  mother's  health  gave  way  some  two 
years  before  her  death,  and  for  a  large  portion  of  the  time 
she  was  an  invalid.  A  devoted  wife,  a  tender,  loving  and 
judicious  mother,  and  a  humble,  consistent  Christian, 
she  passed  peaceably  away  on  the  18th  of  October,  1856, 
at  Sullivan's  Island.  A  large  assemblage  met  us  at  the 
Second  Presbyterian  church,  and,  Dr.  Girardeau  pre- 
siding, we  laid  her  away  to  rest  in  the  family  burying 
ground  of  that  cemetery. 

This  event  did  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  visibly  affect' the 
health  of  our  father.  His  grief  was  not  manifested  in 
tears  or  words.  That  was  not  the  style  of  the  man.  But 
it  was  evident  to  us  all  how  deeply  he  felt  the  solitude  into 
which  he  had  passed.  He  was  accustomed  for  many  years 
to  spend  his  summers  at  Kinderhook,  at  Saratoga,  whose 
waters  always  benefited  him,  and  other  summer  retreats 
at  the  Xorth.  In  September,  1858,  when  he  was  in  his 
eighty-second  year,  he  was  at  IvTew  York  with  his  two 


38  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

voimger  daughters  and  his  son  James,  besides  two  of 
his  granddaughters  and  Kev.  Dr.  Girardeau.  He  took  a 
cold  from  sitting  at  a  broken  window  behind  him  in  .a 
parlor  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel.  Pneumonia  ensued, 
and  after  a  short  time  he  ended  there,  on  the  24th  inst., 
his  long,  active,  useful  and  honorable  life.  I  hastened  on, 
but  was  too  late  to  see  him  alive.  Mr.  James  Brown  had 
the  remains  moved  to  his  house,  and  there,  in  his  parlor, 
some  other  friends  joining  us,  w^e  had  religious  services, 
the  Kev.  Dr.  Leland,  of  Columbia,  S.  C,  officiating,  and 
then  all  that  was  mortal  of  our  father  was  deposited  in 
the  family  vault  of  Mr.  Brown  until  cold  weather,  when 
it  could  be  properly  removed  to  Charleston.  This  duty 
was  performed  by  my  brother  Robert.  On  the  27th  of 
November  a  large  assembly  of  the  citizens  of  Charleston 
Avere  gathered  in  the  Second  church  at  his  funeral,  when 
Dr.  Girardeau  officiated  again,  and  then  his  remains  were 
deposited  in  his  family  burial  ground  of  that  church. 
There  stands  the  double  monumental  stone  in  memory 
of  both  my  father  and  mother,  she  having  preceded  hira 
by  two  years.  It  bears  the  following  inscription,  pre- 
pared by  their  son  James  : 

On  the  face  towards  the  East: 

" The  just  man  I        "Pure,  peaceable,  gentle, 

walketh  in  his  integrity."  I        and  easy  to  be  entreated." 


JAMES  ADGER, 

Died  24th  September,  1858, 

Aged  81  Yeaes. 


SARAH  ELIZABETH, 

His  Wife,  Died  IBth  October.  18J56, 

Aged  73  Yeaes. 


"Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
Refrain  thy  voir-e  from  weeping  and  thine  eyes  from  tears, 
for  .  .  .  They  shall  come  again  from  the  land  of  the  enemy." 

On  the  face  towards  the  ^Vest: 

" And  Sarah  died.  I       "Then  Abraham 

And  Abraham  came  gave  up  the  ghost  and 

to  mourn  for  Sarah  died  in  a  good  old  age,  an 

and  to  weep  for  her."         |  old  man,  and  full  of  years." 

Companions  of  a  half  centfrt, 

separated  by  two  brief  years, 

now  reunited. 

"Neither  can  they  die  any  more." 


OUE  ANCESTRY.  39 

My  fatlier's  was  a  strong  character.  He  had  the  kind 
of  will  always  necessary  to  constitute  such  a  character, 
to  which  was  added  a  sound,  clear  judgment  and  great 
energy.  He  was  careful  in  deliberating,  but  prompt  and 
bold  to  act,  and  very  determined  in  persevering.  His  in- 
tegrity was  proverbial.  He  was  more  reserved  than  dem- 
onstrative of  his  feelings,  so  that  his  heart  and  hand  were 
always  more  open  than  his  lips.  In  my  early  life  I  did 
not  understand  my  father,  but  in  this  my  eighty-sixth 
year,  reading  over  his  old  letters,  some  of  them  seventy 
years  old,  which  I  have  long  and  carefully  preserved,  I 
have  been  inexpressibly  affected,  as  I  have  seen  and  felt 
the  tender  love  for  me  which  breathes  through  them  all. 
Well  do  I  know  now  how  warm  his  affections  were,  and 
yet  so  too  were  his  antipathies.  A  man  of  actions  and  not 
words.  He  was  rather  irritable  under  small  annoyances, 
but  calm,  cool  and  self-possessed  in  times  of  trial  and 
danger.  I  waked  him  up  one  morning  at  three  o'clock, 
rode  down  with  him  and  walked  with  him  round  and 
again  round  a  cotton  conflagration  which  consumed  the 
contents  of  an  immense  brick  building  belonging  to  him. 
For  the  lack  of  full  insurance  on  the  cotton  his  loss  was 
$50,000.  He  spoke  hardly  a  word,  just  calmly  looking 
on,  but  when  the  roof  at  last  fell  in,  and  he  saw  the  full 
extent  of  the  loss,  daylight  had  come,  and  he  quietly  said 
to  his  sons,  all  being  present,  "Come,  boys,  let's  go  home 
to  breakfast !  We  must  come  do\\'n  and  go  to  work  build- 
ing again."  And  that  was  all  he  said,  but  the  rebuilding 
was  begun  at  once. 

From  his  very  birth  the  child  of  earnest  and  constant 
prayers,  he  was  trained  to  obedience  and  all  good  conduct ; 
in  his  youth  and  early  manhood  he  was  always  free  from 
the  "small  vices"  which  a  hundred  years  ago  were  held 
more  odious  than  now  in  the  close  of  this  boastful  nine- 
teenth century.  Accordingly  he  always  lived  a  strictly 
sober,  moral  and  upright  life.  But  in  the  year  1832  he 
was  led  to  make  a  public  profession  of  his  humble  faith 
in  the  redemption  of  Christ  for  sinners,  and  thus  he  be- 
came a  communicating  member  of  the  Second  Presbyte- 
rian church.  I  remember  that  he  said  to  the  session  that 
he  hoped  he  would  not  bring  any  dishonor  on  the  church. 


40  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

He  never  was  ^'profuse  in  religious  discourse."  He  sel- 
dom alluded  to  his  own  spiritual  experiences.  His  re- 
ligion ''appeared  in  its  fruits,  in  gentleness,  humility  and 
benevolence,  in  a  steady  conscientious  performance  of 
every  duty,  and  a  careful  abstinence  from  the  appearance 
of  evil."  "^ 

In  his  last  moments,  as  Dr.  Girardeau  testifies,  being 
asked  of  his  willingness  to  die,  and  of  his  trust  only  in 
Christ,  he  promptly  and  decidedly  replied  that  he  was 
"willing  to  submit  to  the  will  of  God  in  his  removal  from 
earth,"  and  that  his  faith  was  "in  the  atoning  blood  and 
merits  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This,  says  Dr.  Girar- 
deau, was  "literally  his  dying  testimony.  It  was  almost 
his  last  audible  and  rational  expression  of  his  feelings." 


CHAPTER  II. 

My  Childhood  and  Early  Youth, 

1810-1822. 

I  WAS  born  the  13th  of  December,  1810,  being  the 
third  child  of  my  parents.  I  had  two  sisters  okler 
than  myself,  namely,  Margaret  Milligan  and  Susan  Dun- 
lap.  Younger  than  myself  I  had  three  brothers,  James, 
Robert  and  AYilliam,  then  two  sisters,  Sarah  Elizabeth 
and  Jane  Anne,  and  then  another  brother,  Joseph  Ellison. 
At  this  date  I  have  survived  them  all  except  my  sister, 
Jane  Anne,  and  my  brother,  Joseph  Ellison. 

My  very  earliest  recollection  is  of  a  feat  which  I  per- 
formed one  Sunday  at  church.  I  cannot  have  been  over 
three  years  old.  I  remember  distinctly  the  pew  then 
occupied  by  my  father  with  his  little  famih^  It  is  on  the 
left-hand  of  the  pulpit  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  church 
in  the  extreme  corner  on  the  side  next  Charlotte  street. 
The  "small  boy"  had  a  little  bench  upon  the  seat  of  the 
pew,  so  that  he  could  see  and  be  seen.  And  his  provident 
mother,  to  help  him  through  the  service,  had  furnished 
him  a  biscuit.  Tie  devoured  as  much  of  it  as  he  wanted, 
and  then  amused  himself  with  putting  a  piece  of  it  up  his 
nose,  and  when  he  could  not  readily  get  it  out  again, 
raised  a  loud  yell  from  his  little  perch  which  interrupted 
Dr.  Elinn,  and  disturbed  the  congregation  so  that  he  had 
to  be  carried  out  bawling.  All  that  week  he  was  told  by 
everybody  that  he  would  have  to  go  up  the  following  Sun- 
day morning  to  the  pulpit  and  ask  Dr.  Flinn's  pardon. 
Sunday  came  and  they  all  had  forgotten  what  they  said, 
but  "small  boy"  remembered  it,  and  intended  fully  to  do 
it.  In  those  days  Presbyterian  parents  and  children  went 
to  and  came  from  church  always  in  a  family  group.  So, 
no  sooner  had  this  family  entered  the  house  than  the  little 
three-year-old,  separating  himself  from  the  rest,  was  seen 
to  be  running  up  the  big  cross  aisle  and  rapidly  making 
tracks  for  the  pulpit  steps.  They  caught  him  just  before 
he  readied  them. 


42  MY  LIFE  AIsD  TIMES. 

In  1812  tlio  United  States  declared  war  with  Great 
Britain.  On  the  8th  January,  1815,  when  I  was  just 
turned  of  four  years,  they  gained  the  victory  at  New 
Orleans  with  troops  under  General  Andrew  Jackson,  the 
battle  being  actually  fought  after  peace  had  been  agreed 
on,  but  had  not  yet  been  published.  But  it  had  been  the 
expectation  that  Charleston,  and  not  jSJ'ew  Orleans,  was 
to  be  attacked,  and  so  during  the  winter  of  the  year  1814 
the  citizens  of  my  native  city  were  at  work  every  day 
throwing  up  a  line  of  defence  against  an  attack  by  land. 
These  "lines"  stretched  across  from  the  Cooper  to  the 
Ashley  river,  and  were  laid  out  by  skillful  military  en- 
gineers, were  as  high  as  a  man's  shoulders,  and  some  ten 
feet  broad  on  the  top  and  fifteen  at  the  bottom — deep 
ditches  in  front  and  lines  of  sharpened  posts  set  in  these 
ditches  all  along,  so  as  to  hinder  the  near  approach  of  the 
enemy. 

My  father  was  first  lieutenant  of  the  Independent 
Greens,  a  company  of  young  Irishmen.  It  was  the  custom 
for  wives,  mothers,  and  children  to  walk  up  in  the  after- 
noons and  see  the  husbands  and  fathers  at  work.  A  friend 
of  my  father,  who  was  not  of  the  military,  took  his  family 
and  ours  up  there  one  afternoon.  He  had  a  little  son  of 
my  age,  and  got  a  couple  of  little  wooden  spades  made  for 
him  and  me.  So,  on  reaching  the  lines  where  my  father 
and  his  men  were  at  work,  these  two  little  chaps,  not  the  a 
four  years  old,  were  permitted  to  fill  one  hand-barrow  with 
the  dirt  that  was  to  be  carried  on  a  plank  over  a  deep 
ditch  to  the  opposite  embankment.  If  the  two  juveniles 
were  not  very  proud  of  this  patriotic  performance,  no 
doubt  both  their  mothers  were.  They  filled  the  barrow, 
but  did  not  venture  across  the  plank. 

I  have  a  very  distinct  recollection  of  the  rejoicings  in 
Charleston  over  the  news  of  peace.  Butler,  a  young  Afri- 
can slave  of  my  father's,  carried  a  hand  bell  and  rang  it 
all  through  the  streets,  as  many  others  like  him  were  sent 
to  do,  and  all  the  church  bells  rang  also.  I  remember,  too, 
the  illumination  of  the  town  that  night,  with  candles ;  no 
electric  lights  then,  and  no  gas  lights  either,  not  even 
lamps  filled  with  oil,  only  candles,  but  it  was  held  to  be  a 
o-rand  affair. 


MY  CHILDHOOD  AIN^D  EARLY  YOUTH.  43 

The  first  school  I  ever  went  to  was  kept  not  far  from 
our  home  bv  old  Mrs.  Mood  in  Meeting  street,  just  below 
Boundary,  on  the  left-hand  as  you  go  do^\'ll  town.  It  was 
right  opposite  to  the  second  one  of  the  three-story  brick 
biiildings  which  still  stand  on  the  west  corner  of  Meeting 
and  Boundary.  Those  buildings  had  basement  windows 
on  the  street,  dead-windows,  never  opened  then,  and  I 
suppose  never  since.  Their  shutters  set  back,  and  so  there 
was  made  a  little  shelf  about  as  high  from  the  ground  as 
would  accommodate  a  youngster  of  not  more  than  four 
years.  That  shelf  is  associated  with  my  very  earliest 
recollections.  At  our  school  intermission  we  children 
used  to  run  across  the  street  and  make  that  recessed  win- 
dow the  shelf  for  our  luncheons  or  playthings. 

At  Mrs.  ]\[ood's  school,  I  remember  what  admiration 
I  felt  for  a  big  boy  named  Owen  Fitzsimons,  and  for  an- 
other named  John  Stoney.  Mrs.  Mood  taught  me  to  speak 
that  famous  speech — 

"  You'd  scarce  expect  one  of  my  age 

To  speak  in  public  on  the  stage, 

And  if  I  chance  to  fall  below 

Demosthenes  or  Cicero, 

Don't  view  me  with  a  critic's  eye, 

But  pass  my  imperfections  by. 

Great  streams  from  little  fountains  flow, 

Tall  oaks  from  little  acorns  grow. 

And  all  great,  learned  men  like  me 

Once  learned  their  little  A,  B,  C." 

This  is  a  classic  morceau.  It  certainly  runs  far  back 
perhaps  even  into  the  seventeenth  century.  Fearing  that 
this  proud  nineteenth  century,  which  has  produced  so 
many  beautiful  things,  has  come  to  despise  and  forget 
these  exquisite  lines,  I  think  it  my  duty  in  this  history  of 
my  times  to  record  them  here,  and  pass  them  into  the 
twentieth  century.  There  also,  at  a  very  early  age,  T 
learned  to  read,  and  I  well  remember  my  grandmother's 
praises  when,  at  four  years  of  age,  I  stood  at  her  knee  and 
read  the  second  chapter  of  Matthew,  beginning,  "'Now, 
when  Jesus  was  born,"  etc.  Having  naturally  what  was 
then  styled  a  "cow-lick,"  which  inclined  my  hair  back- 
wards, she  used  to  tell  me  that  I  looked  like  Dr.  Flinn, 
who  brushed  his  hair  back,  and  that  I  also  was  to  be  a 
preacher. 


44  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

The  famous  speech  above  referred  to  was  once  delivered 
about  this  period  on  an  occasion  when  the  orator  covered 
himself  with  glory.  We  lived  then  in  Brownlee's  Row, 
the  second  house  from  the  corner  of  Hudson  in  King 
street,  where  I  first  saw^  the  light.  Mr.  Samuel  Kobert- 
son's  family  and  ours  were  very  intimate.  They  lived  on 
the  opposite  side  of  King  street  at  the  south  corner  of 
Vanderhorst,  Avhere  the  house  still  stands.  My  sisters  and 
I  were  allowed  to  take  tea  there  one  evening  with  express 
directions  from  my  mother  to  return  at  eight  o'clock.  The 
four-year-old  was  called  on  by  Mr.  Robertson  to  make 
his  celebrated  speecli.  In  the  middle  of  the  speech  the 
big  clock  in  the  room  began  to  strike.  The  boy  stop- 
ped in  the  middle  of  his  speech,  and  gravely  counted  one, 
two,  three,  etc.,  and  then  he  shouted,  "There,  mother  said 
we  must  come  home  at  eight  o'clock ;  let  us  go !"  The 
oration  was  not  finished. 

The  youthful  orator  distinguished  himself  greatly  on 
another  occasion  about  the  same  period.  We  had  occa- 
sional visits  from  a  Philadelphia  friend  of  my  father's,  a 
north  of  Ireland  gentleman,  of  some  degree  of  kinship 
with  him,  who  was  very  fond  of  children,  and  whom  we 
all  called  ''Uncle  Harper."  lie  had  gone  out  one  evening 
to  walk,  and  came  home  to  tea  with  his  pockets  full  of 
apples.  One  was  given  to  John,  who  enjoyed  greatly  the 
eating  of  it,  and  then  modestly  expressed  himself  thus, 
''Uncle  Harper,  if  you  were  to  say  to  me,  'John,  will  you 
have  another  apple,'  I  would  say,  'Yes,  sir,  if  you 
please.'  "  The  rest  of  the  ceremony,  of  course,  wrs  car- 
ried out. 

One  of  the  happiest  days  of  my  early  childhood  was 
when  I  was  allowed  to  accompany  our  Maum  Sue  to  the 
Charleston  market.  She  was  a  faithful  slave  given  to 
my  mother  l)y  her  father,  and  nursed  all  of  us  children, 
and  also  did  the  cooking.  ^lany  a  basket  of  chips  did  we 
little  boys  gather  for  her  to  bake  biscuits  in  the  Dutch 
oven,  and  many  a  biscuit,  and  many  a  "fadgr"  *  did  we 
get  before  supper  or  breakfast  for  this  heli).     The  day 

*  The  "fadge"  is  an  Irish  biscuit  made  of  flour  with  boiling  water 
poured  on  it  and  then  baked.  Tlie  boiling  water  acts  like  the  best 
yeast  powder. 


MY  CHILDHOOD  AND  EARLY  YOUTH.  45 

that  I  went  with  her  to  the  market  was  a  red-letter  day 
in  my  young  life.  My  next  brother,  James,  was  not  to 
go — he  was  ''too  little,"  only  abont  four,  but  I  was  his 
big  brother,  say,  six  years  old.  I  could  go,  but  he  could 
not.  Maum  Sue  instructed  me  to  run  round  the  corner 
of  Hudson,  and  wait  there,  till  she  would  come  to  me, 
after  getting  away  from  him.  So  off  we  started,  she  with 
her  market-basket  and  money,  and  I  with  eyes  and  ears 
wide  open  to  see  and  hear  all  the  wondrous  things. 

Coming  back  from  market  that  day  Maum  Sue  took  me 
with  her  when  she  went  to  see  Uncle  Aberdeen,  who  had 
his  cooper's  shop  on  Boundary  street,  between  Meeting 
and  King,  where  ]\larion  Square  now  stands.  That  street 
was  so  called  because  then  the  city  extended  no  further 
up ;  now  it  is  Calhoun  street.  x\ll  above  that  street  was 
"The  jSTeck,"  and  not  under  municipal  authority.  Uncle 
Aberdeen  was  very  old,  and  very  black,  but  he  was  very 
good.  We  children  all  looked  on  him  as  a  saint  already. 
To  go  and  see  old  Uncle  Aberdeen,  capped  the  climax  of 
my  joy  that  day. 

My  brother  James  must  have  begun  to  accompany  my 
older  sisters  and  me  to  Mrs.  Mood's  school,  when  not  more 
than  four  or  five  years  old.  He  was  always  a  bold  and  en- 
terprising fellow.  One  day,  as  we  were  all  going  home, 
he  rushed  from  us  out  into  the  middle  of  Boundary  street 
for  something  that  he  saw,  and  fell,  and  a  dray,  loaded 
with  a  hogshead  of  tobacco,  passed  over  him.  We  were 
horrified.  Old  Uncle  Aberdeen  lifted  and  carried  him 
home.  His  only  hurt,  as  it  proved,  was  that  a  piece  of  the 
skin  of  his  skull  as  big  as  a  silver  dollar  was  scraped  off 
by  the  tail  skid  of  the  dray.  There  was  great  alarm  at 
home,  when  old  Uncle  Aberdeen  brought  in  the  wounded 
boy.  Old  Dr.  Frontis,  our  family  physician,  was  sent 
for,  and  James,  of  course,  was  to  be  a  prisoner  for  several 
days.  But  seeing  a  dray,  with  cotton  on  it,  enter  the  yard, 
he  rushed  down  stairs,  and  as  the  dray  went  out  empty, 
he  was  seen  mounted  on  the  tails,  or  skirts,  of  the  dray, 
and  shouting  as  he  rode  out. 

There  was  good  family  government  at  the  home  of  our 
childhood,  notwithstanding  this  unruly  performance  of 
venturesome  James.     It  was  my  mother  Avho  held  the 


-iC  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

reins,  for  I  believe  my  father  never  laid  his  finger  on  one 
of  his  children.  My  gentle  and  loving  mother  was  as 
firm  as  she  Avas  kind.  She  had  a  little  instrnment  that 
greatly  assisted  her.  It  was  made  of  a  piece  of  stout 
leather,  about  fifteen  inches  long  and  three  wide.  It  was 
cut  into  nine  strips,  or  tails,  about  one  foot  long,  leaving 
three  inches  as  a  handle,  with  a  hole  in  the  handle  to 
hang  it  up  by,  and  it  was  always  hung  up  on  the  right- 
hand  jamb  of  our  dining-room  chimney.  But  we  never 
called  it  a  *'cat-o'-ninc-tails."  It  had  the  far  more  vener- 
able name  which  it  brought  from  the  old  country,  namely, 
the  "tawse."  Whenever  it  was  necessary,  this  instrument 
was  put  in  operation.  But  that  was  very  seldom,  for  my 
good  mother's  word  was  a  law  to  us  all.  Only  one  occa- 
sion do  I  recall  wdien  she  ever  appealed  to  my  father's 
authority.  My  intrepid  brother  James  was  given  a  piece 
of  dry  bread  to  eat  when  hungry.  He  demanded  some- 
thing better,  and,  indeed,  he  threw  the  bread  on  the  floor. 
When  told  to  pick  it  up,  he  refused.  Just  then  my  father 
came  in,  and  my  mother  pointed  him  to  James,  and  the 
despised  piece  of  bread.  All  he  had  to  sav  was,  ''Pick  up 
that  bread,  sir,  and  eat  it  this  minute."  Both  actions  were 
quickly  and  duly  performed. 

The  only  experiences  I  ever  had  of  the  "tawse"  from 
my  mother  were  two.  One  was  tolerably  severe.  But  it 
was  unjust.  My  mother  did  not  correctly  apprehend  the 
case.  The  other  was  for  a  little  fight  my  brother  James 
and  1  had,  on  a  Sunday  afternoon,  in  the  street,  outside 
our  front  gate.  We  had  no  business  to  be  outside  of  the 
gate,  much  less  to  be  fighting  there  on  a  Sunday.  We  did 
not  get  any  more  than  we  deserved.  My  mother's  rule  was 
for  her  boys  to  play  in  our  large  yard  at  home,  and  we 
were  never  in  the  street,  day  or  night,  except  when  re- 
quired to  go  or  come. 

At  school  I  never  got  a  whipping.  Once  Dr.  Jones,  of 
whom  I  was  a  pupil  when  ten  years  old  at  his  school  in  St. 
Philips  street,  smote  me  on  my  right  palm  with  his  pad- 
dle, and  once,  when  I  was  a  year  or  two  older,  the  Rev. 
Edward  Palmer,  the  father  of  Dr.  Ben  Palmer,  of  IsTew 
Orleans,  caught  me  doing  my  writing  exercise,  and  not 
holding  my  pen  in  the  prescribed  way.     Walking  behind 


MY  CHILDHOOD. AND  EARLY  YOUTH.  4Y 

ITS  as  we  wrote,  he  saw  my  disobedience,  aud  cracked  me 
on  the  sknll  a  few  times  with  the  handle  of  his  penknife. 
Lc'ng  years  after  this  I  made  him  laugh  when  we  became 
co-presbyters,  by  twitting-  him  about  his  penknife  on  my 
skull.  The  paddling  I  got  from  Dr.  Jones  came  about  on 
this  wise.  Mr.  Samuel  Robertson's  son,  a  year  or  two  older 
than  I,  and  my  particular  friend,  finding  my  copy-book 
on  my  desk  and  my  writing  lesson  all  done,  amused  him- 
self in  my  absence  with  a  little  piece  of  playful  mischief. 
Every  line  of  my  copy  closed  with  the  letter  "n,"  and 
John  B.  Robertson  twisted  round  the  end  of  each,  after 
the  manner  of  a  pug  dog's  tail.  Dr.  Jones  asked  me, 
''Why  did  you  do  that,  sir  ?"  I  said  nothing,  and  he  gave 
me  the  paddle. 

On  the  arrival  from  Ireland  of  a  young  kinsman  of  my 
grandmother's,  who  bore  her  maiden  name  of  Crawford, 
I  was  removed  from  Dr.  Jones'  school,  and  Hamilton 
Crawford  and  I  came  under  the  instruction  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Palmer  in  Beaufain  street  at  the  head  of  Archdale. 
This  did  not  last  long,  for  Mr.  Palmer,  who  was  not  then 
a  minister,  left  Charleston  to  go  somewhere  at  the  !N^orth 
to  study  theology,  and  was  after  that  ordained.  Hamil- 
ton was  my  senior  by  a  number  of  years,  and  he  com- 
menced then  his  business  career,  while  I  went  to  the  clas- 
sical school  of  Prof.  William  E.  Bailey  in  Wentworth 
street,  east  of  Meeting.  My  brother  James  went  with  me 
to  the  same  school,  but  was  in  the  English  department  of 
it  under  Mr.  Courtenay,  father  of  William  A.  Courtenay, 
for  several  terms  mayor  of  Charleston. 

I  began  the  study  of  I^atin  with  an  excellent  teacher. 
Prof.  William  E.  Bailey,  and,  after  some  length  of  time, 
of  Greek  also.  I  was  fond  of  reading,  and  in  these  days 
I  made  the  acquaintance  of  Rohinson  Crusoe  s  Life  and 
Adventures,,  in  the  large  and  full  form  in  which  it  then 
appeared.  Th^t  book  made  a  profound  impression  on  me, 
and  I  think  I  owe  much  to  the  immortal  Defoe.  I  was 
also  greatly  charmed  by  old  John  Bunyan — 

"  That  ingenious  dreamer  in  whose  well-told  tale 
Sweet  Fiction  and  sweet  Truth  alike  prevail." 

I  think  I  must  have  got  acquainted  in  those  days  with 
Cowper's  Task.    And  I  know  that  Milton's  Paradise  Lost 


48  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

attracted  me  strongly.  There  was  another  book  given  me 
bv  some  friend,  altogether  forgotten  by  the  yoimg  people 
of  this  day,  to  which  I  owe  very  much,  for  it  made  read- 
ing delightful  to  me,  and  through  it  I  began  to  know 
something  about  the  great  city  of  London  and  its  various 
classes  of  society.  Its  title  was.  The  Hermit  in  London. 
My  recollections  of  it  are  so  pleasant  that  I  would  like  to 
sit  down  now,  in  my  eighty-sixth  year,  and  hear  it  all 
read  from  beginning  to  end.  But  among  the  books  I 
loved  in  my  early  boyhood  I  should  not  forget  to  mention 
Miss  Edgeworth's  Parents  Assistant,  whose  beautiful 
stories  in  that  volume  had  but  one  fault.  She  was  a  Uni- 
tarian, and,  if  I  do  not  greatly  mistake,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  reference  to  the  Almighty,  or  to  any  other  re- 
ligious truth,  in  the  whole  book.  I  was  at  that  time  a 
thoughtless  boy,  and,  of  course,  the  discovery  of  this 
feature  was  made  in  after  years.  One  other  part  of  my 
early  education  I  must  now  mention.  I  went  every  Sun- 
day to  Sunday-school  in  the  galleries  of  the  old  Second 
Presbyterian  church,  where  we  learned  Old  Testament 
history,  as  well  as  that  of  the  ISTew  Testament,  out  of  the 
simple  question  and  answer  books  then  published  by  the 
American  Sunday-school  Union.  The  instruction  was 
directly  from  the  Bible,  for  we  were  naturally  led  to  read 
and  study  the  chapter  which  constituted  the  subject  of 
the  lesson.  Comparisons  are  invidious.  It  will  not  do 
for  the  old  man  to  say  that  he  prefers  the  simpler  and 
director  method  of  those  early  days  to  the  more  preten- 
tious ones  of  the  present  time,  but,  nevertheless,  the  old 
man  has  his  own  opinion. 

I  came,  in  these  boyhood  days,  somewhat  under  the  in- 
fluence of  an  Irish  scholar,  who  strangely  enough  was 
passenger  in  a  ship  coming  directly  to  Charleston  about 
the  year  1820,  with  a  company  of  north  of  Ireland  farm- 
ers, emigrating  to  South  Carolina,  to  whose  coming  I 
referred  iu  Cliapter  I.  My  father  and  his  brotlier  in 
Fairfield  District,  were  assisting  them  to  leave  the  old 
country. 

Among  them,  but  not  of  them,  was  Hobert  F.  Macully. 
He  was  no  Presbyterian,  luit  of  the  English  Church. 
Evidentlv  his  kind  and  affable  behavior  had  endeared  him 


MY  CiriLDHOOD  AND  EARLY  YOUTH.  49 

to  the  other  passengers,  who,  of  course,  introduced  him  to 
my  father.  Being  a  solitary,  unkno^vn  stranger  in 
Charleston,  he  was  invited  to  my  father's  house,  and  he 
came  and  charmed  us  all,  grandmother,  parents  and  chil- 
dren. He  was  some  twenty-two  or  three  years  old,  tall 
and  handsome,  of  refined  and  most  pleasing  manners.  He 
was  not  only  a  gentleman,  but  he  was  a  scholar,  knew 
Latin  and  Greek,  French,  Italian  and  Spanish,  and  had 
quite  a  library  of  elegant  volumes  in  these  various  lan- 
guages. I  think  he  must  have  been  intended  for  an  Eng- 
lish clergyman,  for  when  once  asked  by  my  oldest  sister 
what  made  him  come  to  America,  his  answer  was,  "Be- 
cause I  preferred  my  trans-Atlantic  liberty  to  a  curacy 
and  ninety  pounds  a  year."  He  soon  became  a  professor 
in  the  Charleston  College,  and  a  student  of  law  with 
Judge  Mitchell  King.  Being  anxious  to  perfect  himself 
in  speaking  Spanish,  he  went  from  my  father's  house  to 
board  with  a  Spanish  family,  where  he  soon  became  a 
very  great  favorite,  but  one  night,  supping  with  them 
on  one  of  their  Spanish  dishes,  fried  plantains  (which  is 
a  kind  of  coarse  banana),  they  proved  fatal  to  him.  How 
well  do  I  remember  going  with  my  mother  to  see  our  dear 
young  friend  on  his  dying  bed,  and  how  poor,  old  Seiiora 
Ravina  did  weep  over  him.  My  father  had  to  administer 
on  his  little  estate,  and  send  home  the  proceeds  to  his 
mother.  At  the  public  auction  he  bid  in  his  writing  desk 
and  a  number  of  his  beautifully  bound  French  and  Italian 
books,  all  of  which  he  gave  to  me.  Most  of  these  books 
were  burned  with  my  library  by  Sherman  in  Columbia. 
A  few  of  them  I  still  possess,  with  his  autograph  on  the 
fiy-leaf,  thus,  "Jl.  Macully,"  and  sometimes,  "Robert  F. 
Macully,  IsTewtonardes,  Ireland." 

The  last  school  I  attended  in  Charleston  was  kept  by 
the  Rev.  George  Reid,  a  Presbyterian  minister  in  Meet- 
ing street,  a  little  above  Market.  This  was  during  the 
first  half  of  the  year  1824.  But  subsequently  all  that  part 
of  the  city  was  destroyed  by  fire,  and  rebuilt  as  now. 
Among  my  companions  in  ]Mr.  Reid's  school  were  Dr. 
Thomas  L.  Ogier,  of  Charleston,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ed- 
ward T.  Buist,  of  Greenville.  Edward  T.  Buist  was  some 
years  my  senior,  and  we  were  intimate  friends  at  Mr. 


50  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Eeid's  school.  This  intimacy  was  renewed  at  Princeton 
Seniinarv,  and  it  continued  through  all  his  life.  He  had 
a  vigorous  intellect,  early  became  a  devoted  Christian, 
and  was,  through  a  long  life,  an  eminent  and  very  useful 
Christian  minister. 

Thomas  L.  Ogier  was  about  my  age.  At  Mr.  Reid's 
school  he  did  not  distinguish  himself  as  a  student,  and  I 
lost  sight  of  him,  when  I  left  that  school,  went  to  Kinder- 
hook  Academy,  and  passed  through  Union  College  and 
Princeton  Seminary.  The  very  nex.t  time  I  laid  eyes  on 
Ogier,  just  returned  from  his  course  of  studies  at  Paris, 
was  in  the  Medical  College  building  of  Charleston,  whea, 
surrounded  by  a  number  of  eminent  surgeons,  I  saw  him 
take  hold  of  a  semi-circular  surgical  knife  and  passing  it 
under  the  thigh  of  a  negro,  lying  on  a  table  before  him, 
at  one  sweep,  cut  through  all  the  flesh  of  it  down  to  the 
very  bone.  'Next  I  saw  him  tie  up  the  arteries  and  com- 
plete the  successful  amputation.  He  still  lives  at  this 
date,  November,  1896,  after  a  long  and  most  useful  life^ 
respected  and  honored  by  all  Charleston. 

While  I  was  going  to  Mr.  Reid's  school,  I  conceived  a 
desire  to  learn  French,  and  so,  wutli  my  father's  consent, 
in  addition  to  my  school  hours,  I  took  lessons  three  times 
a  week  from  Seiior  Ravina,  in  whose  family  my  admired 
friend,  R.  Macully,  had  boarded  until  his  lamented  death. 
From  him  I  learned  enough  to  read  any  ordinary  French 
book. 

Before  I  close  this  chapter  let  me  go  back  and  give  some 
account  of  occurrences  in  Charleston  during  the  year 
1822,  which  very  greatly  excited  our  good  city,  and  fixed 
impressions  on  the  public  mind,  which  lasted  many  long 
years  in  full  vigor.  On  the  30th  of  May  a  faithfiil  slave 
communicated  to  his  master  that  an  attempt  at  insurrec- 
tion by  the  negroes  against  the  whites  was  to  be  made  very 
shortly.  He  had  learned  this  from  one  of  the  conspira- 
tors, who  wished  him  to  join  in  the  attempt.  That  man 
was  immediately  arrested,  and  by  degrees  all  the  leaders 
came  to  be  known,  taken  up  and  imprisoned.  A  few  of 
them  proved  to  be  men  of  remarkable  energy  and  daring. 
But  even  they  showed  themselves  to  be  very  ignorant  and 
utterly  incompetent  to  plan  or  carry  out  such  a  movement. 


MY  CHILDHOOD  AND  EARLY  YOUTH,  51 

The  most  remarkable  of  these  few 'men  was  Demnark 
Vesey.  During  the  Revolutionary  war,  in  the  year  1781, 
he  was  brought  as  a  slave  boy,  aged  about  fourteen,  from 
Africa  to  San  Domingo  by  one  Captain  Vesey,  who  com- 
manded a  ship  in  the  slave  trade.  On  the  voyage  the  cap- 
tain and  his  officers  were  struck  with  his  beauty,  alertness 
and  intelligence.  They  made  a  pet  of  him  by  taking  him 
into  the  cabin,  changing  his  apparel,  and  calling  him,  by 
way  of  distinction,  Telemaque,  which  api^ellation  was,  by 
gradual  corruption  among  the  negroes,  changed  to  Den- 
marlv,  or  sometimes  Telmak.  Subsequently  he  was 
brought  to  Charleston  by  Capt.  Vesey,  who  retained  pos- 
session of  the  boy,  and  he  was  his  most  faithful  slave  for 
twenty  years.  In  1800  Denmark  drew  a  prize  of  $1,500 
in  a  lottery  in  Charleston  called  ''East  Bay  Street  Lot- 
tery," and  he  then  purchased  his  freedom  from  the  cap- 
tain at  the  low  price  of  $600.  From  that  time  he  con- 
tinued very  successfully,  for  about  twenty-one  years,  his 
trade  as  carpenter  in  Charleston.  Among  his  color,  he 
had  unbounded  influence.  His  temper  was  impetuous 
and  domineering  in  the  extreme.  All  his  passions  were 
ungovernable  and  savage,  and  to  his  numerous  wives  and 
children  he  displayed  the  haughty  and  capricious  cruelty 
of  an  Eastern  Bashaw.  This  man,  it  was  abundantly 
proved,  Avas  the  sole  originator  of  the  plot  of  insurrection. 
He  had  revolved  the  subject  in  his  mind  for  many  years, 
and  had  succeeded  in  uniting  with  himself  a  considerable 
number  of  others.  It  was  at  his  house  that  the  leaders 
continually  assembled  to  take  counsel  together.  And 
there  it  was,  he,  who  encouraged  the  timid,  removed  the 
scrujjles  of  the  religious  by  gross  prostitution  of  the  sacred 
oracles,  and  inflamed  the  resolute  by  all  the  savage  fasci- 
nations of  blood  and  booty. 

The  16th  of  June,  at  midnight,  was  the  time  appointed 
for  the  insurrection.  Under  the  several  leaders,  different 
companies  were  to  attack  the  arsenal  in  the  northwestern 
part  of  the  city,  and  another  depot  where  arms  were  kept 
in  King  street,  besides  other  places  of  a  like  kind.  Dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  city  were  to  be  simultaneously  set  on 
fire,  and  when  the  fire  bells  were  rung  and  white  men 
rushed  out  from  their  houses,  they  were  all  to  be  put  to 


52  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

death,  and  then  the  women  and  children  were  to  be  dis- 
posed of,  and  not  one  white  skin  was  to  be  left  alive. 
These  poor  creatures  seemed  to  imagine  that  this  was  all 
to  be  done  with  the  greatest  ease,  and  without  any  white 
resistance.  Such  was  the  ignorance  even  of  the  leaders 
and  of  Denmark  Vesey  himself.  They  counted  on  all 
their  race  in  Charleston  rising  at  once  to  get  free,  forget- 
ting how  many  of  them  were  too  faithful  to  their  masters 
and  how  few  of  them  had  any  arms  or  capacity  for  such  a 
contest.  They  counted  on  whole  armies  coming  in  from 
the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Charleston,  as  if  any  such 
widespread  cooperation  were  a  thing  conceivable.  They 
wore  even  made  to  believe  that  as  soon  as  they  began  to 
fight  with  the  whites  of  Charleston,  the  English,  against 
wliom  there  had  been  war  a  few  years  before,  would  come 
to  their  assistance.  They  Avere  even  made  to  believe  that 
the  San  Domingo  people,  who  had  lately  made  a  suc- 
cessful insurrection,  would  "march  an  army"  to  aid  their 
struggle;  and  Vesey  had  proclaimed  amongst  them  that 
as  soon  as  they  had  robbed  the  banks  of  their  specie  and 
the  King  street  shops  of  their  goods  and  got  everything  on 
board  ship,  they  should  then  sail  away  to  San  Domingo 
to  enjoy  their  treasure. 

In  conformity  with  the  act  of  Assembly  passed  in  1740, 
when  South  Carolina  was  a  province  under  the  British 
government,  a  court  was  immediately  convened,  consist- 
ing of  "Magistrates  and  Freeholders,"  to  try  all  the  ac- 
cused. The  penalty  prescribed  by  this  act  for  insurrec- 
tion was  death.  There  was  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
evidence  in  every  case.  The  whole  number  of  the  accused 
was  one  hundred  and  thirty-one,  of  whom  thirty-five  were 
hanged,  thirty-seven  banished  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
United  States,  the  rest  were  discharged  as  not  being  found 
guilty.  On  the  2d  of  July  Denmark  Vesey  and  five 
others  of  the  ring-leaders  suffered  death  by  hanging.  Im- 
mense crowds  of  whites  and  blacks  were  present  at  the 
scene.  On  the  26tli  day  of  July  I  saw  distinctly,  from 
the  third-story  window  of  my  father's  house  in  upper  King 
street,  not  far  from  the  scene,  a  long  gallows  erected  on 
"The  Lines,"  and  on  it  twenty-two  negroes  hanged  at  one 
time.     I  might  sav  that  the  whole  citv  turned  out  on  this 


MY  CHILDHOOD  AND  EAKLY  YOUTH.  53 

occasion,  and  this  was  certainly  a  sight  calculated  to  strike 
terror  into  the  heart  of  every  slave.  Among  these  twenty- 
tAvo,  there  was  one  of  the  leaders,  whose  name  was  Jack 
Pritchard.  Being  a  guUah  negro,  he  was  commonly 
known  as  Gnllah  J  ack.  In  Africa  he  had  been  known  as 
of  the  family  of  conjurers  inheriting  by  descent  the 
powers  belonging  to  his  forefathers.  With  all  these  he 
was  still  accredited  after  being  brought  to  Charleston  as 
a  slave.  It  was  his  claim  no  white  man  could  arrest  him, 
nor  was  he  liable  to  death  at  any  white  man's  hand. 

All  these  facts  which  I  have  here  stated  I  get  from  an 
old  pamphlet,  in  my  possession,  published  at  the  time, 
which  appears  to  be,  in  some  sense,  an  official  account  of 
the  whole  matter. 

I  must  quote  a  paragraph  from  its  pages,  as  I  draw 
to  a  close.     In  speaking  of  the  negroes,  who  were  led  to 
engage  in  this  attempt,  the  writer  says,  "It  was  distinctly 
proved  that  with  scarcely  an  exception  they  had  no  in- 
dividual hardship  to  complain  of,  and  were  amongst  the 
most  humanely  treated  negroes  in  our  city.    The  facilities 
fc>r  combining  and  confederating  in  such  a  scheme  were 
amply  afforded  by  the  extreme  indulgence  and  kindness, 
which  characterizes  the  domestic  treatment  of  our  slaves. 
Many  slave-owners  among  us,  not  satisfied  with  minister- 
ing to  the  wants  of  their  domestics  by  all  the  comforts  of 
abundant  food  and  excellent  clothing,  with  a  misguided 
benevolence  have  not  only  permitted  their  instruction,  but 
lent  to  such  efforts  their  approbation  and  applause.     Re- 
ligious fanaticism  has  not  been  without  its  effect  on  this 
project,  and,  as  auxiliary  to  these  sentiments,  the  seces- 
sion of  a  large  body  of  blacks  from  the  white  Methodist 
church,  with  feelings  of  irritation  and  disappointment, 
formed  a  hot-bed,  in  which  the  germ  might  w^ell  be  ex- 
pected to  spring  into  life  and  vigor.      Among  the  con- 
spirators a  majority  of  them  belonged  to  the  'African 
Church'  and  among  those  executed  were  several  who  had 
been  class-leaders.    It  is,  however,  due  to  the  late  head  of 
their  church  (for  since  the  late  events  the  association  has 
been  voluntarily  dissolved)  and  their  deacons  to  say  that, 
after  the  most  diligent  search  and  scouting,  no  evidence 
entitled  to  belief  has  been  discovered  against  them.      .A. 


54  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

hearsay  rumor  in  relation  to  Morris  Brown  was  traced  far 
enough  to  end  in  its  complete  falsification." 

Upon  these  statements  by  the  very  intelligent  author  of 
this  pamphlet  I  have  some  observations  to  make. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  he  is  quite  right  speaking  of  the 
kindness  with  which  our  slaves  in  Charleston,  and  I  may 
say,  throughout  South  Carolina,  were  generally  treated. 
I  feel  perfectly  sure  that  the  duties  of  the  relation  of 
master  and  slave  amongst  us  were  just  as  well  performed 
as  those  of  human  relations  in  general.  To  say  no  more, 
it  was  for  the  interest  of  the  master  to  treat  his  slaves 
well.  I  have  personally  known  a  lady,  not  at  all  more 
humane  or  kind-hearted  than  women  generally,  to  sit  up 
alone  night  after  night,  nursing  a  valuable  slave,  sick  with 
typhoid  fever.  It  Avas  to  her  interest  to  see  that  the 
proper  medicine  was  given  at  the  proper  time,  and  that 
nothing  should  be  wanting  to  preserve  the  life  of  her  val- 
uable servant.  Let  outsiders  say  what  they  will,  masters 
and  slaves,  throughout  the  whole  South  generally,  occu- 
pied very  kindly  relations  to  one  another.  It  is  enough  to . 
point  to  the  good  behavior  of  the  Southern  slaves  in  gen- 
eral during  the  late  war,  when  the  masters  were  nearly 
all  at  the  front,  they  stood  as  the  guardians  and  protectors 
of  mistress  and  her  children. 

II.  But,  in  the  second  place,  it  was  no  "misguided  be- 
nevolence" which  led  many  slave-owners,  not  only  to  fur- 
nish their  domestics  with  abundant  food  and  comfortalde 
clothing,  but  also  to  permit  their  instruction  in  reading 
and  writing  by  their  own  children  and  others,  but  even  to 
give  such  efforts  their  well-merited  applause.  These  in- 
telligent slaveholders  held  rightly  that  light  is  better  than 
darkness — that  the  ignorance  of  the  slave  was  more  dan- 
gerous, as  well  as  more  unprofitable,  than  his  intelligence. 
Who  does  not  see  that,  if  the  bulk  of  his  followers  had  been 
sufficiently  educated  to  see  how  vain  his  attempt  was, 
they  never  could  have  been  persuaded  to  join  in  it  ? 

III.  In  the  third  place,  it  appears  to  me  the  writer  Vi 
raistaken  as  to  there  being  much,  if  any,  religious  fanati- 
cism at  the  bottom  of  this  attempted  insurrection.  Vesey, 
it  seems,  grossly  perverted  Scripture  in  removing  the 
scruples  of  his  religious  followers ;    but  so  also  maiiv  of 


MY  CHILDHOOD  AND  EARLY  YOUTH.  55 

the  !N"ortliern  abolitionsts,  who  would  justly  be  very  in- 
dignant at  being  called  religions  fanatics,  grossly  pervert 
the  Scriptures  to  make  them  condemn  slaveholding. 
Keither  Denmark  Vesey  nor  any  of  his  most  earnest  fol- 
lowers seem  to  me  to  have  been  religious  fanatics.  They 
wanted  their  freedom,  which  is  the  natural  desire  of  all 
men.  He  had  his  freedom.  But  he  wanted  also  blood 
and  booty,  and  that  he  might  get  oif  with  a  load  of  specie 
and  other  valuables  to  San  Domingo.  I  do  not  believe 
that  that  African  church  was  the  centre  of  the  movement 
for  insurrection.  The  writer  distinctly  acknowledges 
that  Morris  Browm  and  his  deacons  were  proved  to  be  in- 
nocent of  any  complicity  in  it.  But  the  people  of  Charles- 
ton very  naturally  Avere  under  very  great  excitement,  and 
it  was  almost  inevitable  that  their  suspicions  should  at- 
tach to  that  poor  African  church.  As  will  appear  in  a 
subsequent  chapter,  I  was  to  learn,  at  a  future  time,  how 
sensitive  jDublic  sentiment  in  our  good  old  city  had  been 
rendered  by  this  attempt  at  insurrection  respecting  any 
separate  organization  of  the  negroes  for  religious  instruc- 
tioji,  even  when  it  was  to  be  given  by  white  teachers  alone. 
After  a  quarter  of  a  century  that  poor,  little  African 
church,  under  good  Morris  Brown  and  his  worthy  coadju- 
tors, was  to  loom  up,  and  be  held  forth  as  having  been  a 
most  dangerous  institution,  in  order  to  create  prejudice 
against  an  honest  attempt  to  give  safe,  sound  and  Scrip- 
tural instruction  to  our  slaves  by  white  teachers  of  native 
growth  and  every  way  competent  qualifications. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Academy  and  College  Life. 

1824-1828. 

ON  THE  11  til  day  of  July,  1824,  when  I  was  thir- 
teen years  seven  months  old,  I  was  sent  from 
Charleston  with  my  younger  brother,  James,  to  Kinder- 
hook,  to  my  father's  two  half-sisters,  in  order  that  we 
might  attend  the  academy  at  that  place.  That  academy 
had  some  considerable  reputation.  The  idea  then  pre- 
vailed with  many  in  our  Southern  country,  and  especially 
in  Charleston,  that  schools  at  the  North  were  far  superior 
to  ours.  In  addition  to  this  idea  my  parents  supposed 
that  the  change  of  climate  would  develop  my  constitution, 
for  I  was  at  that  time  rather  small  for  my  age.  The  view 
perhaps  proved  to  be  correct,  but  the  Kinderhook  Acad- 
emy was  in  no  ways  superior,  if  indeed  it  was  equal,  to 
the  Charleston  school  from  which  I  had  been  taken.  The 
principal  in  his  prime  must  have  been  a  competent 
teacher,  but  in  1824  he  was  a  worn-out  old  man,  exceed- 
ingly near-sighted  and  very  absent-minded,  besides  being 
an  inveterate  and  voracious  and  very  disgusting  chewer 
of  tobacco.  While  hearing  a  class  in  Latin  or  Greek,  he 
would  hold  the  text-book  close  up  to  his  eyes  and  then 
stroll  diagonally  across  the  school-room  to  the  door  and 
then  back  again  to  his  position,  opening  the  door  every 
time  he  got  to  it,  that  he  might  squirt  the  tobacco  juice 
out  of  his  mouth,  while  some  of  it  would  run  down  upon 
his  beard  and  upon  his  shirt  bosom.  Such  was  the 
teacher ;  as  to  the  scholars,  while  a  number  of  them  were 
much  older  and  a  great  deal  bigger  than  the  Southern 
boys,  not  one  of  them  was  more  advanced  than  the  older 
of  the  two  in  Latin  or  Greek. 

The  most  notable  circumstance  of  my  life  at  Kinder- 
hook  Academy  was  that  I  tliere  met  a  little  Dutch  boy, 
six  years  of  age,  who  subsequently  became  one  of  tlie  most 
distiuc'uished  men  of  our  time.     He  was  in  the  second  or 


ACADEMY  AXD  COLT.EGE   LIFE.  57 

English  department  of  the  Academy,  and  being  my  junior 
by  about  seven  years,  my  personal  acquaintance  with  him 
was  slight.  He  was  small  for  his  age,  but  very  handsome, 
and  bore  himself  with  such  sturdy,  but  not  saucy,  inde- 
pendence as  made  me  feel  even  then  that  he  was  a  char- 
acter. About  the  year  1840,  at  the  age  of  twenty-two,  he 
went  as  a  missionary  to  Beirut  in  Syria,  and  died  there  at 
the  age  of  seventy-seven. 

From  the  moment  of  his  first  arrival  he  made  it  his  sole 
business  to  acquire  the  Arabic  language,  and  to  this  end 
quit  the  society  of  all  English-speaking  people  at  Beirut, 
and  sought  for  and  found  a  home  for  some  years  amongst 
the  Arabs  themselves.  This  showed  the  regular  Dutch 
material  of  which  he  was  made.  The  result  was  that  one 
who  knew  him  well  says  he  became  such  a  master  of 
Arabic  as  had  no  peer,  and  that  his  death  leaves  such  a 
vacancy  amongst  Arabic  scholars  as  will  probably  never 
be  filled.  He  was  long  recognized  by  European  savanta 
as  the  greatest  living  Arabic  scholar.  When  he  went  to 
Berlin,  the  great  German  professors,  who  had  given  years 
to  the  study  of  the  Oriental  languages,  soon  perceived  that 
they  were  in  the  presence  of  a  master  before  whom  they 
felt  they  were  mere  tyros.  How  could  it  be  otherwise  ? 
This  man  for  more  than  fifty  years,  was  not  only  devoted 
to  the  reading  of  Arabic  in  books,  but  to  the  speaking  of 
it  and  the  hearing  of  it  spoken.  His  vocation  in  part  was 
to  preach  in  Arabic,  and  that  duty  he  performed  with  the 
greatest  success.  He  spoke  the  language  like  an  Arab; 
and  on  one  occasion,  in  the  year  1860,  when  war  raged  in 
the  M.t.  Lebanon  country,  between  the  Druses  and  the 
Maronites,  he  came  near  losing  his  life  because  those  into 
whose  hands  he  had  fallen  could  not  believe  him  to  be  an 
American,  but  insisted  that  he  belonged  to  the  enemy  be- 
caiise  he  talked  Arabic  just  like  a  native. 

But  this  man  was  not  simply  a  master  of  Arabic,  but  a 
missionary  physician,  and  so  rendered  very  great  service. 
He  was  also  a  chemist,  mathematician,  astronomer,  and  a 
profound  Biblical  scholar.  He  wi-ote  several  medical 
books  in  iVrabic,  among  them  one  on  diseases  of  the  eye, 
so  prevalent  in  the  East.  But  the  greatest  work  of  his 
pen  was  his  translation  of  the  Bible  into  Arabic,  which 


58  MY  I.IFE  AISTD  TIMES. 

was  begun  by  the  lamented  Eli  Smith,  and  to  which  this 
man  gave  twelve  years  of  continuous  labor,  esteemed  to  be 
one  of  the  best  translations  in  any  language.  It  places 
the  Word  of  God  within  the  reach  of  one  hundred  millions 
of  Mohammedans. 

Thus  my  youthful  acquaintance  of  six  years  of  age, 
whom  all  the  Dutch  boys  at  Kinderhook  called  ''Little 
Kale,"  has,  through  divine  grace,  been  enabled  to  act  well 
his  part  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  of  this 
nineteenth  century,  and  has  become  known  in  Europe, 
America,  and  also  Asia,  as  the  Rev.  Cornelius  Van  Alen 
Van  Dyck,  with  a  long  string  of  titles  at  the  end  of  his 
name.  Certainly  he  was  one  to  whom  the  w^ords  apply, 
"Blessed  are  the  dead  who  die  in  the  Lord  from  hence- 
forth ;  yea,  saith  the  Spirit,  for  they  rest  from  their 
labors  and  their  works  do  follow  them." 

I  passed  one  year  at  the  Kinderhook  Academy.  My 
father  came  on  to  see  his  sisters  and  his  sons  in  our  second 
summer  there.  The  assistant  teacher  of  the  Academy, 
who  was  a  cultivated  gentleman,  when  consulted  with  by 
my  father,  thought  it  was  advisable  that  I  should  be  trans- 
ferred to  L^nion  College,  Schenectady,  applying  for  ad- 
mission to  the  sophomore  class.  This  was  certainly 
enough  to  demonstrate  that  seventy-one  years  ago  Union 
College  was  by  no  means  what  it  may  rightfully  claim  to 
be  in  1896.  Else  how  otherwise  could  a  little  boy  of  fif- 
teen and  a  half  years  of  age  have  been  received  with  so 
little  preparation  as  mine  was  into  its  sophomore  class  ? 
Still  it  had  for  its  president  even  then  the  eminent  and 
eloquent  Rev.  Dr.  Eliphalet  ISTott ;  and  two  of  its  profes- 
sors then  wore  Alonzo  Potter,  subsequently  Bishop  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  Eraneis  Wayland,  afterwards  pres- 
ident of  Brown  University,  Rhode  Tslaiid,  both  very 
superior  men. 

My  brother  James  was  very  unwilling  to  remain  aloue 
at  Kinderhook  Academy,  and  stubbornly  averse  to  the 
idea  of  going  any  further  in  the  study  of  the  classics. 
His-  father  found  it  impossible  to  refuse  his  persistent 
request  to  be  taken  home  and  set  to  work  in  his  counting 
house,  so  he  was  taken  back  to  Charleston,  and  duly  in- 
stalled on  a  high  stool  at  a  desk  with  a  big  ledger  spread 


ACADEMY  AND  COLLEGE  LIFE.  59 

out  before  him  full  of  old  accounts,  settled  one  or  two 
scores  of  years  previously.  He  was  to  go  over  these  ac-. 
counts  and  see  if  he  could  find  any  mistakes.  He  went 
energetically  to  work,  and  persevered  with  it  laboriously, 
having  the  idea  in  his  mind  that  a  very  important  task 
had  been  committed  to  him.  By  way  of  variety  he  had  a 
marking  pot  and  brush  with  which  to  mark  hundreds  of 
bales  of  cotton.  His  industrious  and  exact  and  careful 
attention  to  these  official  duties  gave  our  father  very  great 
satisfaction,  foreseeing  clearly  what  a  man  of  business 
that  boy  would  become.  But  it  was  not  very  long  before 
a  desire  for  the  college  education  he  had  once  despised 
came  back  upon  him  with  tremendous  force,  and  the 
strong-willed  father  again  gave  way  to  the  persistent  re- 
quest of  his  strong-willed  son.  He  entered  Charleston 
College,  became  an  enthusiastic  student  of  the  ancient 
languages  and  achieved  honorable  distinction  at  his  grad- 
uation. 

For  his  older  brother  to  be  got  ready  for  Union  College 
some  preparation  by  the  tailor  was  now  become  necessary. 
Hitherto  the  boy  had  worn  a  round  jacket,  but  amongst 
other  things  a  tail  coat  was  now  to  be  prepared  for  him. 
And  such  a  tail  coat  as  the  Dutch  tailor  of  Kinderhook 
did  then  construct !  It  was  short  in  the  waist.  It  was 
short  at  the  tail.  What  a  figure  he  did  cut  when  he  put  on 
that  coat !  the  recollection  always  makes  me  laugh  now  in 
my  eighty-sixth  year.  But  it  was  the  first  tail  coat  the 
boy  had  ever  worn,  and  in  his  simplicity  he  felt  that  it 
constituted  one  long  step  towards  manhood.  So  he  went 
to  Union  College  thus  apparelled,  and  whenever  he  after- 
wards appeared  along  with  other  collegians  in  the  streets 
of  Schenectady  (or  old  Durrip,  as  it  was  by  them  jocu- 
larly called),  the  small  boys  of  the  town,  attracted  partly 
by  the  shortness  of  his  stature,  and  no  doubt  very  largely 
by  the  shortness  of  the  tail  coat,  would  follow  after,  cry- 
ing out,  "Look  at  the  little  student."  I  can't  remember 
when,  but  suppose  it  could  not  have  been  very  long  before 
the  "little  student"  became  the  master  of  a  more  respect- 
able tail  coat. 

I  stood  successfully  all  the  examination  that  was  re- 
quired for  admission  into  the  sophomore  class.     But  Dr. 


60  MY  LIFE  AND  TI^SIES. 

'Nott,  President  of  the  College,  influenced  perhaps  some- 
what by  the  diminutiveness  of  my  apj)earance,  discour- 
aged my  father  from  leaving  me  there.  He  was  certainly 
to  be  honored  for  giving  this  candid  advice,  for  there  was 
no  great  plentifulness  of  students  there  at  this  time. 
What  affected  the  President's  judgment  much  more  was 
that  I  was  a  Southern  boy.  He  strongly  portrayed  the 
very  peculiar  danger  there  was  that  as  such  I  would  be 
ruined.  Dr.  ]^ott  was  a  wise  and  good  man ;  he  had  had 
considerable  experience  with  Southern  students.  Such  a 
number  of  them  from  other  colleges,  some  ^'suspended" 
or  "rusticated,"  and  some  even  "expelled"  for  dissipation 
or  other  bad  conduct,  had  come  to  Union  College,  and  the 
President  had  graciously  received  them  into  his  classes, 
that  Union  College  had  earned  the  sobriquet  of  "Botany 
Bay."  But  great  was  Dr.  ISTott's  knowledge  of  human  na- 
ture, especially  in  the  young,  and  great  was  his  delight 
in  taking  a  young  man  who  had  been  so  disgraced,  and,  by 
judicious  treatment,  restoring  him  to  self-respect  and 
good  behavior.  Thus  had  he  saved  many  a  Southern 
youth.  One  such  at  Union  College  in  my  time  was  the 
celebrated  statesman,  Robert  Toombs,  of  Georgia.  But 
Dr.  ISTott  was  persuaded  that  one  so  young  and  inexperi- 
enced as  I,  would  certainly  be  in  very  special  danger.  My 
father,  however,  seemed  to  have  very  great  confidence  in 
his  little  son,  and  so  it  was  decided  that  I  should  remain. 
He  said  very  little  to  me,  but  I  remember  that  his  last 
words  were,  "Now,  don't  learn  to  smoke  or  chew  or  any 
other  bad  habit." 

But  it  was  not  very  long  before  my  father  received  a 
letter  from  Dr.  Nott,  which  must  have  made  him  appre- 
hensive that  his  leaving  me  at  college  was  a  mistake.  The 
letter  informed  him  that  his  son  had  been  found  guilty 
of  having  liquor  in  his  room,  and  a  carousing  party  there 
at  unseasonable  hours  of  the  night.  The  truth  of  the 
business  was  that  during  the  examination  held  at  the  close 
of  my  first  session  in  college,  when  I  had  got  nearly 
through,  and  in  a  day  or  two  vacation  was  to  begin,  a 
young  man  who  was  in  the  same  class  with  my  room-mate, 
came  up  to  chat  a  little  with  his  friend.  This  young  man 
was  named  Reid,  and  was  from  Poughkcepsie,  on  the 


ACADEMY  AND  COLLEGE  LIFE.  61 

Hudson  river.  Mrs.  Dr.  'Nott  was  from  that  same  place, 
and  this  young  man  was,  therefore,  well  kno\vn  to  the 
President.  It  was  also  understood  that  he  was  to  become 
an  Episcopal  minister.  My  room-mate  was  a  member  of 
the  Dutch  Keformed  Church,  a  decided  Christian,  and  he 
also  was  destined  to  the  ministry.  After  chatting  with 
us  for  awhile,  Reid,  who  was  quite  youthful,  and  of  a 
social  and  lively  disposition,  said,  ''I  have  some  fresh 
eggs  in  my  room ;  suppose  I  bring  them  up  here,  and  we 
scramble  them  in  a  tin  plate,  and  we  enjoy  ourselves. 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  affair.  One  and  another  of 
our  fellow-students  dropped  in  before  the  scrambling,  and 
then  it  was  thought  advisable  that  we  should  have  some- 
thing to  eat  with  the  eggs,  and  so  I,  with  one  other  of  the 
party,  went  over  to  the  steward's  hall,  and  bought  a  large 
apple-pie — I,  being  the  Southern  boy,  probably  furnishing 
the  money.  By  the  time  we  got  back  two  or  three  more 
students  had  dropped  in,  and  somehow  or  other,  but  I 
don't  know  how,  a  supply  of  whiskey  had  also  been  ob- 
tained. One  of  the  last  arrivals  was  Beall,  a  young  Mary- 
lander,  who  was  full  of  life  and  fun,  and  who  made  con- 
siderable noise  at  the  entertainment.  How  many  of  the 
seven  or  eight  present  partook  of  the  whiskey  I  cannot 
say ;  but  I  feel  sure  my  Dutch  room-mate  was  not  one  of 
them,  and  I  know  that  I  didn't  taste  it.  I  have  always 
been  constitutionally  averse  to  spirits  of  any  kind.  But 
to  tell  the  truth,  young  Reid  took  enough  of  it  to  become  a 
little  hilarious,  and  then  insisted  on  making  a  very  bois- 
terous speech.  Of  course.  Dr.  Potter,  the  professor  who 
had  charge  of  our  section  of  the  college  building,  and  who 
occupied  a  part  of  it  with  his  family,  must  have  heard 
the  uproar,  and  no  doubt  he  must  have  come  and  looked  in 
upon  our  merriment.  And  so,  no  doubt,  next  morning 
we  were  all  reported  to  the  President. 

That  day  as  I  passed  the  President's  study  he  was  just 
coming  out  of  it,  and  so  he  took  me  by  the  arm  and  we 
walked  together  to  the  next  college  building.  He  was  ex- 
ceedingly kind  and  fatherly  in  talking  with  me,  but  dwelt 
on  liquor  being  introduced  into  college  as  a  very  serious 
wrong.  I  don't  remember  if  I  told  him  that  I  had  not  in- 
troduced it  nor  even  tasted  it.    I  know  that  I  accused  no- 


62  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

body  else ;  all  I  remember  was  saying  to  him,  "But,  Doc- 
tor, it  was  only  a  little."  "Ah!  but,  my  son,"  he  said, 
with  his  hand  on  my  shoulder,  "it  is  the  principle  that  I 
look  at."  Here  was  a  distinction  made  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance, which  I  daresay  never  before  occurred  to  me. 
I  have  always  looked  back  upon  that  conversation  with 
gratitude  to  the  old  President.  That  was  all  he  said  to 
me,  but  he  added  another  kindness  to  me  in  communicat- 
ing his  views  of  the  matter,  as  he  understood  it,  to  my 
father.  The  paternal  rebuke  which  I  got  was  also  very 
kind,  expressing  great  surprise  and  keen  disappointment 
that  I  should  have  "held  a  wine  party  in  my  room."  Of 
course  my  reply  must  have  given  my  father  great  satisfac- 
tion, as  I  sent  him  a  full,  frank  and  correct  statement  of 
the  case. 

But  the  sequel,  I  must  say,  did  not  seem  to  me  alto- 
gether honorable  in  the  President.  At  the  beginniiiii;  of 
every  new  session,  when  we  returned  to  college,  after 
vacation,  we  always  found  hung  up  in  a  conspicuous  place 
what  was  called  the  Merit  Roll.  It  contained  the  names 
of  the  several  classes  separately  written  alphabetically, 
so  that  my  name  appeared  almost  at  the  head  of  the  soph- 
omore class.  Then  there  were  five  distinct  columns, 
marked  at  the  head  of  the  first.  Conduct ;  the  second.  At- 
tendance, and  the  other  three,  the  names  of  the  three 
studies  of  the  previous  session.  In  each  of  these  columns 
every  student  found  opposite  to  his  own  name,  publicly 
held  forth,  what  had  been  his  relative  standing  the  pre- 
vious session.  The  highest  grade,  which  we  call  Maxi- 
mum, was  one  himdred,  any  figure  below  ninety  was 
rather  disgraceful.  I  had  reason  to  expect  that  I  would 
not  get  quite  one  hundred  in  point  of  conduct,  and  so  I 
was  not  surprised  at  all  to  be  put  down  at  ninety-nine. 
But  I  did  consider  it  rather  hard  that  my  room-mate,  who 
was  a  mature  man,  while  I  was  a  little  boy,  was  made  to 
stand  at  one  hundred  in  conduct,  and  that  young  Reid  was 
made  to  occupy  the  same  honorable  position.  It  was 
taken  for  granted  that  the  Southern  boy  must  be  one  of 
the  guilty,  but  the  two  young  preachers  were  to  be  let  off. 
I  never  met  either  of  these  two  again. 

The  Southern  boy  was  never  involved    in    any  other 


ACADEMY  AND  COLLEGE  LIFE.  63 

scandal  during  the  whole  of  his  course.  For  this  there 
was  one  cause  that  was  quite  adequate  for  such  an  effect. 
A  great  moral  change  came  over  me  during  the  next  sum- 
mer. I  have  reason  to  believe  that  I  came  under  the 
power  of  regenerating  grace.  This  was  in  my  sixteenth 
year,  and  four  or  five  others  of  my  class  appeared  to  be 
affected  in  the  same  way.  A  brief  account  of  this  event 
will  be  interesting  and  perhaps  profitable.  I  was  just  a 
light-hearted  boy,  by  no  means  very  studious,  maintaining 
a  tolerable  stand  at  recitation,  quite  happy  in  my  relation 
to  all  my  college  friends,  and  very  well  satisfied  on  the 
whole  with  myself.  One  day  I  got  to  the  dining  hall 
quite  late,  and  there  were  very  few  students  still  at  their 
dinner,  but  I  very  soon  discovered  that  they  were  all  a 
good  deal  agitated  about  something.  Uj)on  inquiring  of 
one  what  was  the  matter,  the  answer  was,  "Why,  that  fel- 
low McDowell  is  going  about  talking  to  everybody  on  the 
subject  of  religion."  How  well  do  I  remember  the  terror 
which  immediately  filled  my  soul,  and  how  unwilling  I 
was  to  have  this  discovered  by  others.  So  I  assumed  the 
air  of  one  who  has  nothing  to  be  afraid  of,  and  boldly  de- 
clared, "If  he  dares  to  speak  to  me,  I  will  tell  him  I  think 
on  that  subject  for  myself."  I  vainly  imagined  that  this 
should  be  a  perfect  shield  against  McDowell's  approach. 
But  then  McDowell  never  approached  me,  and  I  had  to 
go  to  McDowell.  I  fully  believe  the  Holy  Spirit  was  begin- 
ning his  work  in  me  with  that  first  shock  of  mortal  terror. 
Who  was  McDowell  ?  A  student  some  twenty-five  years 
old,  in  the  sophomore  class  with  me,  and  who  always  sat 
right  beside  me  in  the  class-room,  and  of  whom  I  had  had 
no  dread  until  I  heard  the  aj^palling  news  that  he  was 
talking  of  personal  religion  to  some  of  our  class-mates. 
Well  do  I  remember  how,  some  two  or  three  months  be- 
fore this,  as  I  sat  one  Sunday  in  the  gallery  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  at  Schenectady,  I  heard  the  minister,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Erskine  Mason,  say  some  words  about  the  neces- 
sity of  every  one  being  converted  and  becoming  a  Chris- 
tion.  But  I  quickly  put  aside  what  he  uttered  with  the 
thought  in  my  heart  that  I  was  too  young  to  be  concerned 
about  that  matter.  But  that  day  at  dinner  in  the  hall 
there  came  upon  me  an  influence  shaking  out  of  me  in  one 


64  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

moment  every  particle  of  indifference,  and  dispelling  for- 
ever all  my  fancied  security. 

John  R.  McDowell  was  a  poor  young  man  from  Can- 
ada, dressed  in  a  suit  of  clothes  hardly  decent,  who,  we 
understood,  got  his  boarding  and  tuition  for  the  service 
of  ringing  the  college  bell  wath  careful  punctuality  at 
every  recitation,  and  for  prayers  in  the  early  morning. 
The  room  that  Avas  given  him  was  a  miserable  apartment, 
a  kind  of  long  corridor  in  the  second  story  of  a  wing  in 
the  college  building.  He  was  put  there  to  be  close  to  the 
bell.  Much  older  than  the  most  of  his  class-mates  he  was 
by  no  means  in  advance  of  them  in  our  studies.  And  then 
he  halted  in  his  walk,  being  somewhat  lame  in  one  leg. 
Look  now  at  this  picture.  There  was  nothing  in  the  cir- 
cumstances or  appearance  of  John  K.  McDowell  to 
awaken  our  respect,  in  fact  there  was  much  calculated  to 
make  us  thoughtless  boys  look  down  upon  him.  But  he 
was  a  holy  man  of  God,  a  thoroughly  earnest  Christian, 
and  therefore  his  personal  deformity,  his  poverty,  his  old 
clothes,  his  want  of  any  superior  claims  to  talent  or  edu- 
cation, set  him  before  us  all  in  the  same  light  in  which 
Paul,  the  poor  tent-maker,  and  all  the  other  humble  apos- 
tles of  our  Lord,  stood  before  the  rich  and  the  great  in 
Jerusalem,  Asia  Minor,  Greece  and  Rome. 

This  man  McDowell,  as  I  said,  never  addressed  me  a 
word  on  the  subject  of  religion,  but  there  was  a  higher 
power  operating  within  my  soul.  The  conviction  that  I 
was  a  sinner  took  strong  hold  of  me.  I  scarcely  thought 
of  anything  else,  and  yet  I  managed  to  get  my  lessons  and 
recite  them  about  as  well  as  ever.  But  I  spent  my  leisure 
hours  in  reading  the  Bible,  or  conferring  with  a  few  of 
my  classmates  and  others  affected  in  the  same  manner 
as  myself ;  or  else  betaking  myself  to  the  fields  behind  the 
college,  I  strolled  about  in  solitary  prayer. 

One  day,  when  alone  with  my  new  room-mate,  Peter 
Henry  Sylvester,  of  Kinderhook,  a  class-mate  of  his 
called.  This  young  man,  a  number  of  years  my  senior, 
was  very  fond  of  me,  in  fact  made  me  a  pet,  and  fre- 
quently took  me  on  his  knee.  He  was  a  fine,  manly  fel- 
low, tall  and  handsome,  from  Central,  ISTew  York  State. 
I  admired  him  greatly.     His  name  was  Rufus  \V.  Peck- 


ACADEMY  AND  COLLEGE  LIFE.  65 

ham.  He  became  an  eminent  lawyer,  prominent  member 
of  Congress,  but  he  was  drowned  many  years  afterwards, 
when  the  steamship  Arctic  went  down  in  the  Atlantic, 
with  so  many  of  her  passengers.  He  has  a  son  and  name- 
sake now  sitting  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  This  friend  of  mine  occupied  a  room  immedi- 
ately opposite  to  mine.  He  began  talking,  as  soon  as  he 
was  seated,  with  Sylvester,  about  the  man  McDowell.  He 
said  his  room-mate  did  nothing  but  read  the  Bible  and 
pray  since  McDowell  had  been  talking  to  him.  Then  he 
turns  to  me,  continuing  his  talk,  and  says,  "Why,  Adger, 
I  hear  that  you  are  one  of  them."  I  do  not  remember 
what  answer  I  made  him,  but  rose  almost  immediately 
and  went  across  to  his  room,  where  I  found  my  class-mate, 
David  H.  Little,  brushing  his  own  shoes.  I  said  to  him, 
"Little,  where  are  you  going  ?"  He  answered,  "I  am 
going  over  to  McDowell's  room  to  attend  a  prayer-meet- 
ing." I  had  never  heard  of  this  prayer-meeting  before, 
but  immediately  said,  "I  will  go  with  you."  So  we 
started  together.  Just  in  front  of  the  college,  as  we  issued 
forth,  there  was  a  muster  and  drill  of  a  company  of  cadets 
of  the  college,  which  Dr.  I^^ott  encouraged  us  all  to  join. 
Little  and  I  were  both  members,  but  our  places  in  the 
muster  that  afternoon  were  vacant.  I  felt  sure  that  our 
companions  in  the  drill  observed  us,  and  knew  whither  we 
were  going.  But  the  power  that  was  working  within 
made  me  bold  and  ind liferent  to  wdiatever  they  might 
think.  That  was  my  first  visit  to  McDowell's  prayer- 
meeting  in  his  poor,  miserable  quarters.  I  went  regularly 
after  that.  My  distress  of  mind  continued  for  about  a 
fortnight.  Prominent  in  their  attendance  at  this  meeting 
were  a  number  of  students,  nearly  or  quite  all  of  them 
full-grown  men,  apparently  between  twenty-three  and 
twenty-eight  years  of  age,  all  backward  in  their  education 
and  noted  for  their  low  stand  in  their  classes,  poorly  clad, 
and,  like  ^McDowell  himself,  not  held  in  much  personal 
respect  by  the  students  generally.  But  they  were  good 
men  and  consistent  followers  of  Christ,  and  all  took  their 
part  alternately  in  the  conduct  of  the  prayer-meeting. 
One  afternoon  in  great  distress,  sitting  away  oif  in  one 
corner  of  McDowell's  long  apartment,  listening  to  all  that 


QQ  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

was  said,  I  heard  some  one  speaking  of  tliat  passage  of 
Scripture,  "We  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death 
Tinto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren,"  when,  lo !  imme- 
diately the  hope  sprang  up  in  my  heart,  as  I  looked  at  the 
crowd  of  these  poor  disciples,  that  I  also  ''must  have 
passed  from  death  unto  life,"  because  assuredly  I  do  love 
these  despised  brethren.  This  made  me  feel  very  happy. 
I  believed  that  I  was  justified  by  faith,  and  therefore  I 
had  peace  with  God  through  Jesus  Christ  my  Lord.  My 
peace,  however,  was  not  very  long-continued.  A  great 
darkness  came  over  my  soul.  I  gave  up  all  hope  that  my 
sins  had  been  forgiven,  and  again  I  began  to  feel,  as  I  had 
done  before,  that  I  was  on  the  brink  of  everlasting  ruin. 
Again  and  again  I  dare  not  lay  my  head  at  night  upon 
my  pillow,  lest  if  I  should  fall  asleep  I  might  wake  up  in 
the  abyss.  In  my  great  distress  I  had  recourse  to  jMc- 
Dowell.  It  was  evening.  I  went  to  his  room,  he  prayed 
with  me  and  talked  with  me,  but  I  was  not  relieved ;  he 
left  me  after  awhile  to  go  down  into  the  tovm,  where  he 
was  holding  a  prayer-meeting.  I  sat  by  his  lamp  and  read 
the  Bible  and  tried  to  pray.  When  he  returned  I  was  in 
the  same  condition ;  again  he  essayed  for  a  long  time  to 
help  me,  but  in  vain.  At  last,  being  worn  out  himself  and 
obliged  to  ring  the  bell  punctually  early  in  the  morning, 
he  retired  to  his  bed,  but  I  continued  to  sit  by  his  lamp, 
seeking  to  find  again  the  hope  that  I  had  lost.  A  long 
time  I  remained  in  that  same  despairing  state  of  mind.  I 
was  reluctant  to  return  to  my  own  room,  as  it  was  very 
late  at  night.  At  last  I  was  exhausted  by  excitement  and 
fatigue.  My  poor  friend's  bed  did  not  look  very  inviting, 
it  was  quite  alive  with  previous  occupants — I  saw  them 
plainly — but  I  was  not  in  a  condition  to  be  deterred  by 
such  circumstances,  and  so  I  threw  myself  down  by  his 
side  and  slept  till  his  bell  aroused  me,  when  I  repaired  to 
my  own  quarters. 

These  alternations  of  darkness  and  light,  of  doubts  and 
hopes  continued,  as  is  usilal  with  young  believers,  for 
some  time.  After  a  fev^  months  I  was  received  upon  pro- 
fession of  faith  as  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  Schenectady.  My  room-mate,  Sylvester,  and  my  spe- 
cial friend  Peckham  ended  their  course,  and  I  then  be- 


ACADEMY  AND  COLLEGE  LIFE, 


67 


came  a  room-mate  with  David  H.  Little,  and  we  remained 
together  imtil  we  were  both  graduated  in  1828. 

I  look  back  upon  my  college  course  with  much  dissatis- 
faction. True,  I  have  great  reason  to  be  thankful  that  it 
was  then  and  there  that  I  received,  as  I  trust,  my  first  per- 
sonal experience  of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But, 
speaking  of  my  three  years'  course  there  as  to  educational 
improvement,  it  was  certainly  a  failure.  The  truth  is,  I 
was  not  prepared  to  go  to  college.  According  to  the  stan- 
dard of  preparation  for  the  sophomore  in  Union  at  that 
period,  I  had  knowledge  enough  perhaps  of  the  English 
language,  as  well  as  of  the  Latin  and  Greek.  But  I  was 
a  mere  boy  as  to  my  development  of  character,  mind — yes, 
a  mere  child  as  to  the  knowledge  of  men  and  things,  and 
I  spent  my  three  years  there  to  very  little  purpose.  I 
never  made  a  serious  effort  at  study,  and  I  may  say  lost 
most  of  the  advantages  of  the  course,  being  graduated  be- 
fore I  was  eighteen  years  old.  I  must  say  with  gratitude 
to  Professor  Wayland,  that  he  made  a  personal  effort  on 
one  occasion  to  rouse  me  up  to  some  sense  of  the  value  of 
my  opportunities.  I  was  sawing  a  log  of  wood  for  my 
stove,  after  recitation  hours.  He  stepped  out  of  his  study, 
came  up  to  me  familiarly,  took  the  saw  out  of  my  hand, 
finished  the  cutting,  and  then  said  to  me,  "Adger,  why 
were  you  not  better  prepared  with  your  lesson  this  morn- 
ing 'V  and  he  then  gave  me  a  very  kind  and  fatherly  lec- 
ture on  being  more  diligent.  I  must  also  record  here  my 
sincere  thankfulness  for  his  earnest  and  delightful  relig- 
ious instructions  to  a  number  of  us,  whom  he  met  occa- 
sionally in  one  of  our  rooms.  In  justice  also  to  Dr.  ISTott, 
I  must  acknowledge  that  his  instructions  to  the  senior 
class  (the  text-book,  strange  to  say,  being  none  other  than 
Lord  Kames^  Elements  of  Criticism)  were  made  by  him 
the  occasion  of  giving  us  what  I  think  we  all  valued  more 
than  anything  else  in  the  whole  course,  viz.,  many  practi- 
cal lessons  as  to  human  nature,  and  the  best  way  of  deal- 
ing with  men  and  succeeding  in  all  affairs.  Dr.  l^ott 
was  a  great  and  good  man.  But  after  I  left  college  and 
began  to  think  and  observe  for  myself,  I  came  to  under- 
stand that  these  instructions  were  lessons  more  of  policy 
than  of  principle,  and  I  became  sensible  of  a  very  strong 


68  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

reaction  in  my  mind  against  his  teachings.  I  was  led  to 
renounce  entirely  his  doctrine  of  expediency,  and  it  is 
my  honest  opinion,  candidly  written  here,  that  if  in  my 
public  course  I  have  been  frequently  led  into  the  mainte- 
nance of  extreme  opinions,  one  cause  has  been  disgust 
with  the  timid  and  selfish  spirit  that  always  seeks  some 
middle  ground.  I  do  not  forget  what  Macaulay  tells  us 
of  the  Marquis  of  Halifax,  who,  when  taunted  with  being 
a  trimmer,  replied,  "Yes,  I  trim  between  extremists,  as 
the  Temperate  zone  between  the  Torrid  and  the  Frigid." 
This  is  just  like  what  the  "Moderates"  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  said  of  themselves.  I  count  it  a  great  compli- 
ment Mdiich  my  venerable  colleague  at  Columbia  Semi- 
nary, Dr.  George  Howe,  paid  me,  when  he  said,  "Adger 
is  a  man  that  has  no  disguises."  The  astute  old  President 
of  Union  College  was  the  father  of  many  'New  York  poli- 
ticians. The  famous  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of 
State  in  1861,  was  one  of  them.  When  I  was  a  boy  at 
college,  Mr.  Seward  came  there  once,  a  young  and  rising 
lawyer  of  Central  l^ew  York ;  he  came  on  a  visit  to  his 
college  society,  of  which  I  was  a  member.  I  gave  him  an 
invitation  to  ride  in  a  buggy  with  me  to  the  Colioes  Falls, 
seven  miles  from  Schenectady.  He  honored  me  by  ac- 
cepting. I  have  often  thought  what  a  change  there  might 
have  been  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  if  I  had 
happened  unfortunately  to  upset  the  buggy  and  broken 
Seward's  neck.  Possibly  there  had  been  no  "irrepressible 
conflict"  in  our  country  between  free  and  slave  labor,  and 
possibly  no  war  between  the  States. 

And  so  it  turned  out,  in  the  good  providence  and 
through  the  grace  of  God,  that  the  venerable  President's 
apprehensions  that  the  little  Southern  boy,  not  yet  fifteen 
years  old,  would  be  ruined  if  his  father  should  leave  him 
at  college  were  not  fulfilled.  The  boy  learned  neither  to 
use  profane  language,  nor  to  love  whiskey,  nor  to  gamble, 
nor  to  practise  any  other  ordinary  vices  of  a  dissipated 
college  life.  Here  I  must  relate  a  circumstance,  occurring 
many  years  after  my  boyhood.  I  had  been  a  missionary 
in  Turkey  for  twelve  years,  but  was  at  home  and  sitting 
at  dinner  in  my  father's  house.  He  had  several  gentle- 
men guests  at  his  table,  and  while  I  sat  near  to  my  mother. 


ACADEMY  AND  COLLEGE  LIFE. 


69 


who  was  at  the  head  of  the  table,  I  coukl  overhear  the 
conversation  of  the  gentlemen  at  the  other  end.  They 
were  discussing  the  best  way  to  raise  boys.  My  father 
was  denouncing  the  too  common  practice  at  that  time  of 
Southern  gentlemen  to  give  the  boy  his  pocket  full  of  cash 
and  set  him  on  a  pony  with  a  gun  in  his  hand  as  the  sure 
road  to  his  ruin,  and  I  even  heard  him  boasting  a  little 
of  his  success  in  bringing  up  his  son,  although  he  had  to 
send  him  away  from  home  at  an  early  age.  One  point  he 
made  was  that  I  was  not  allowed  pocket  money.  Being 
young  and  inexperienced  and  far  from  home,  he  had 
taken  Dr.  ISTott's  advice  to  remit  all  money  for  my  ex- 
penses at  college  to  the  treasurer  of  the  institution,  who 
would  see  to  my  necessary  wants.  Then  I  spoke,  and  all 
were  ready  to  listen  to  my  testimony.  I  modestly  re- 
marked that  I  did  not  think  this  money  arrangement  had 
worked  so  very  successfully.  I  stated  that  under  the  ar- 
rangement I  still  always  had  as  much  money  in  my  pocket 
as  I  wanted.  I  would  go  to  Captain  Holland,  the  treas- 
urer, from  time  to  time,  and  he  would  give  me  ten,  fifteen 
or  twenty  dollars,  just  as  I  pleased.  But  I  added  that  I 
could  tell  my  father  what,  far  more  than  the  lack  of 
pocket  money,  was  the  reason  why  his  boy  had  not  been 
ruined  at  college.  All  looked  and  listened.  Then  I  said, 
"It  was  simply  breed,"  then  all  laughed,  the  old  gentle- 
man included. 


CHAPTEK  IV. 

Theological    Seminary    Life. — Our    Marriage    and 

Sailing  for  Smyrna. — My'  Wife^s  Ancestry-. 

1839-1834. 

IMMEDIATELY   after   commencement   was   over    at 
Union  College,  in  June,  1828,  having  delivered  my 
little  speech  and  taken  leave  of  college  friends,  I  set  out 
with  a  class-mate  named  Benjamin  Burroughs,  of  Savan- 
nah, to  visit  ISTiagara  Falls.     I  had  been  to  the  Falls  once 
before  with  my  father  and  mother,  when  our  family  and 
that  of  Thomas  Fleming,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia,  my  fa- 
ther's particular  friend,  had  made  the  trip  together  from 
Albany  in  a  passenger  canal  boat.     The  great  Governor 
of  ]S[ew  York,  De  Witt  Clinton,  had  recently  accomplished 
his  great  work,  the  Erie  Canal,  thus  connecting  Buffalo 
City  by  water  all  the  way  with  I^ew  York.     These  pas- 
senger boats  gave  us  tolerably  comfortable  accommoda- 
tions, a  table  for  our  meals  in  the  day  time,  and  at  night 
berths  rigged  up  for  sleeping.     It  was  a  novel  way  of 
travelling,  but  very  slow,  the  whole  journey  of  over  three 
hundred  miles  being  performed  at  a  slow  trot  by  a  couple 
of  horses  driven  along  the  canal  bank  and  dragging  the 
boat  after  them.     It  occupied,  if  I  remember  rightly, 
about  three  days.      There  were  frequent  "locks"  to  be 
filled,   which  occupied  much  time.      These   locks   were 
built  of  very  solid  masonry,  each  one  long  enough  and 
wide  enough  to  receive  a  canal  boat.     The  boat  would 
enter  a  lock,  and  its  lower  gate  being  closed  on  the  boat, 
water  would  be  let  into  the  lock  by  degrees  from  the  upper 
gate,  and  so  the  boat  would  be  raised  some  ten  or  fifteen 
feet,  then  the  upper  gates  would  be  opened  and  the  horses 
beginning  again  to  drag,  we  were  enabled  gradually  to 
surmount  the  highlands  which  separated  Bufi^alo  from 
Albany.     Of  course,  these  passenger  boats  have  long  since 
been  withdrawn  from  the  canal,  l)iit  T  suppose  the  freight 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  LIFE,  71 

boats  have  continued  during  all  these  seventy  years  to 
bring  down  heavy  freights  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the 
Atlantic  ocean. 

My  friend  Burroughs  and  I  didn't  fancy  canal-boat 
travelling.  We  wanted  to  make  the  trip  by  stage,  and 
so  we  got  the  opportunity  of  riding  through  beautiful 
Western  jSTew  York,  and  being  charmed  with  its  many  ele- 
gant villages.  We  had  the  company,  the  pleasant  and 
profitable  company,  of  Alonzo  Porter,  Esq.,  of  Savannah, 
and  his  beautiful  wife,  and  we  boys  enjoyed  ourselves 
unspeakably. 

If  I  remember  rightly  this  trip  had  been  suggested  to 
me  by  my  father,  for  I  still  possess  a  letter  from  him 
giving  me  many  hints  and  much  advice  about  what  I 
should  try  and  see  during  the  journey,  so  as  to  obtain  the 
greatest  benefit  from  the  same.  Once  before  this,  during 
my  college  course,  he  had  arranged  for  me  to  go  with  his 
friend,  and  subsequently  my  friend.  Judge  Mitchell  King, 
of  Charleston,  who  was  on  his  way  to  attend  the  com- 
mencement at  Yale  College.  That  was  the  only  time  I 
ever  saw  the  beautiful  city  of  'New  Haven,  and  all  the 
grand  doings  at  a  Yale  commencement.  The  city  was 
beautiful  indeed,  and  the  commencement  was  grand  in- 
deed, though  both  the  city  and  the  college,  now  the  Uni- 
versity, have  become,  of  course,  very  much  grander.  Oh  ! 
the  kindness  of  my  father  to  me  !  by  no  means  appreciated 
then,  in  my  thoughtless  bovhood,  but  understood  now,  in 
some  measure,  as  I  review  my  life  from  the  beginning, 
re-reading  some  of  his  old  letters  and  recalling  to  mind 
many  of  his  special  favors  to  me,  and  wondering  often- 
times how  I  could  have  failed  at  the  time  to  perceive  and 
estimate  it,  and  bitterly  lamenting  how  much  his  exalted 
hopes  respecting  me  must  have  been  disappointed.  I  feel 
sure  I  was  his  favorite  son  at  the  beginning  and  for  many 
years,  but  that  subsequently  he  canie  to  appreciate  both 
William  first,  and  then  Robert,  deservedly  far  above  me. 

I  spent  the  winter  and  well-nigh  the  whole  year  sub- 
sequent to  my  graduation  chiefly  at  home  in  Charleston, 
but  it  was  not  profitably  spent;  indeed,  very  far  from 
profitably.  I  think,  as  I  look  back,  that  I  did  not  grow 
either  in  knowledge  or  in  grace ;    nevertheless  I  was  led. 


72  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

I  hope  I  may  trust,  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  to  a  fixed  con- 
chision  that  it  was  my  duty  to  submit  myself  to  a  train- 
ing for  the  gospel  ministry.  Accordingly,  in  September, 
^  1829,  I  entered  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton, 
xwhere  I  spent  almost  four  years.  I  found  myself  here  in 
^a  very  different  atmosphere  from  that  either  of  my  college 
or  my  Charleston  life.  My  fellow-students  were  all  de- 
voted to  the  acquisition  of  sacred  learning,  and  the  culti- 
vation of  the  spiritual  life.  Many  of  them  were  very 
godly  men.  Religious  truth  filled  the  very  air.  Our  con- 
versations were  all  about  the  Scriptures.  I  was  thrown 
into  the  company  and  fell  under  the  influence  of  a  num- 
ber of  young  men  of  a  deeper  Christian  experience  and  a 
loftier  tone  of  piety  than  I  had  ever  met.  The  professors, 
Drs.  Alexander  and  Miller  and  Hodge,  impressed  me  as 
no  other  Christian  ministers  had  ever  done,  l^ot  only 
their  profound  learning,  but  the  saintliness  of  their  char- 
acter, filled  me  with  awe.  The  religious  exercises  in  the 
Seminary,  even  those  where  the  professors  took  no  part, 
were  of  a  sort  that  I  had  never  previously  attended.  It 
was  not  long  before  I  was  led  to  doubt  whether  I  was  any 
way  fit  to  be  there.  My  distress  soon  came  to  be  un- 
bearable. I  abandoned  altogether  the  hope  I  had  been 
cherishing,  that  I  was  a  Christian.  It  was  a  dreadful 
experience.  I  gave  up  all  study  and  betook  myself  to 
prayer.  After  a  period  of  great  darkness  the  Lord  re- 
vealed himself  to  me,  and  I  found  peace.  It  was  the 
beginning  for  me  of  a  new  religious  life. 

I  have  often  questioned  whether  what  I  have  just  now 
said  is  strictly  true ;  certainly  I  did  not  now  begin  to  lead 
a  truly  holy  life,  although  religious  truth  did  certainly 
affect  me  in  many  ways  more  than  it  had  previously  done. 
Perhaps  I  might  say  I  became  a  better  Christian,  but  I 
was  really  a  very  poor  sort  of  a  Christian  any  way.  It 
was  then  my  belief  that  I  had  never  been  converted  before, 
and  that  all  my  previous  religious  experiences  had  been 
absolutely  vain  and  worthless.  That  is  not  my  judgment 
now,  as  I  look  back  upon  the  whole  course  of  my  life ;  for 
if  I  am  to  renounce  all  my  religious  experiences  before  I 
went  to  Princeton  because  they  were  so  miserably  de- 
ficient, I  must,  to  be  consistent,  also  renounce  those  that 


O^rrcLc^^  y.G-u^ 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  LIFE. 


73 


followed  what  I  may  call  my  second  conversion,  because 
they  too  have  always  been  certainly  miserably  deficient. 
The  Christian  life  is  a  journey  of  many  steps.  We  have 
to  rise  from  a  low  plane  first  to  one  that  is  higher,  but 
still  not  high.  We  have  to  go  from  step  to  step,^  rising 
from  plane  to  plane,  still  never  reaching  the  height  of 
true  and  perfect  holiness.  We  are  made  perfect  only  at 
death.  In  the  Spirit's  work  of  sanctification,  except 
where  it  is  suspended  during  our  periods  of  spiritual 
slumbering  and  sleeping,  we  die  more  and  more  every  day 
unto  sin,  and  we  live  more  and  more  every  day  unto 
righteousness.  Then,  oh!  blessed  consummation,  the 
souls  of  believers,  being  in  death  made  perfectly  holy,  do- 
pass  immediately  into  glory. 

Princeton  Seminary,  some  seventy  years  ago,  when  I 
attended  there,  had  only  one  three-story  dormitory  build- 
ing, with  Dr.  Alexander's  dwelling  on  the  righthand  of 
it,"and  Dr.  Hodge's  on  the  left.  Dr.  Miller's  house  was 
in  the  town,  and  a  number  of  the  students  also  had  their 
lodgings  and  found  their  boarding  in  the  town.  Usually 
two,  sometimes  three,  students  occupied  one  room  in  the 
dormitory  building.  I  had  my  quarters  there  at  the  first, 
and  got  my  meals  in  the  Refectory,  where  most  of  the 
students  ate.  But  I  found  it  a  bad  plan.  Eating  our  food 
gregariously  was  not  wholesome.  Most  of  the  students  had 
dyspepsia,  and  I  did  not  escape  till  I  quit  the  hall  and 
went  to  board  in  a  private  family  in  the  town.  What 
added  greatly  to  the  evil  was  the  publication  at  that  very 
time  of  a  work  entitled  Dyspepsia  Forestalled  and  Re- 
sisted. I  think  the  author's  name  was  Hitchcock.  Among 
other  features  were  the  most  precise  directions  as  to  how 
much  a  man  should  eat  and  drink  in  a  day,  so  many 
ounces  of  food  and  drink.  With  a  particular  friend  of 
mine,  a  dear  and  charming  fellow,  by  name  Montgomery 
Harris,  from  Baltimore,  who  finished  his  ministerial 
course  early,  I  had  frequent  consultations  about  dyspepsia 
and  these  rules  of  Hitchcock,  in  fact  we  agreed  together 
to  measure  out  our  food  and  drink  according  to  these 
rules,  and  to  stand  by  them  for  one  fortnight.  We  got 
through  alive,  but  it  nearly  killed  both  of  us.  I  found 
out  afterwards  that  when  our  Saviour  says,  "Therefore 


74  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

take  no  thought,  saying,  what  shall  we  eat,  or  what  shall 
we  drink,"  his  words  may  well  be  understood  and  applied 
literally.  Nothing  disturbs  digestion  more  effectually 
than  anxious  thinking  or  talking  about  dietetic  rules.  It 
is  good  now  as  in  apostolic  times  to  eat  what  is  set  before 
us,  asking  no  question. 

The  professors  at  Princeton  in  my  day  were  only  three 
in  number,  but  they  were  as  good  in  every  res})cct  as 
could  be  found  at  that  time  in  this  country.  Indeed,  all 
things  considered,  no  three  better  professors  can,  in  my 
judgment,  be  found  now  in  any  of  the  numerous  institu- 
tions of  learning  and  religion  all  over  the  land.  Dr.  Arch- 
ibald Alexander,  formerly  a  minister  in  Virginia,  stood 
then  at  the  head  of  all  the  theologians  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  America.  His  natural  endowments  could  not 
be  surpassed ;  he  was  a  learned  and  thoroughly  sound 
theologian,  and  he  had  all  the  sagacity  and  wisdom  neces- 
sary to  fit  him  to  preside  over  a  school  where  a  hundred 
and  twenty  young  men  were  preparing  for  the  ministry. 
Above  all  he  was  a  holy  man  of  God.  His  wife,  born  Janet 
Waddell,  was  the  daughter  of  the  celebrated  blind 
preacher  of  that  name  in  Virginia,  whom  Wirt,  in  his 
British  Spy,  has  so  eloquently  described.  They  had  sev- 
eral sons  who  rose  to  eminence,  among  whom  was  Joseph 
Addison  Alexander,  whose  preeminent  intellectual  abil- 
ities, varied  and  profound  learning,  and  extraordinary 
pulpit  qualifications,  made  him  superior  to  most  and  in- 
ferior perhaps  to  no  one  of  his  brethren. 

Old  Dr.  Alexander  was  not  only  by  birth  a  Southerner, 
but  in  all  the  characteristic  features  of  our  people.  He 
was  a  simple-hearted,  straightforward  man.  In  his  old 
age,  which  was  when  I  knew  him,  his  nervous  system  was 
very  subject  to  the  influences  of  the  east  wind.  We 
youngsters  always  knew  when  the  wind  was  blowing  from 
that  quarter  the  moment  we  looked  at  the  Professor's  face 
when  he  entered  the  lecture-room.  He  must  have  been, 
I  suppose,  under  one  of  these  spells  when  the  following 
incident  occurred.  There  was  a  student  from  South  Car- 
olina, a  very  conscientious  and  good  man,  to  whom  all  his 
brethren  looked  up  with  reverence,  not  of  his  intellect,  but 
of  his  heai't.    He  was  unusually  advanced  as  to  age,  while 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  LIFE.  /  O 

as  to  zeal  and  piety  he  was,  as  it  were,  the  leader,  not  only 
of  his  own  class,  but  all  the  Seminary.  He  had  taken 
up  the  idea  of  total  abstinence  from  all  intoxicating 
drinks  in  its  extremest  form.  It  became  known  in  the 
Seminary  that  the  old  Doctor  denied  the  soundness  of  this 
principle.  The  venerable  student's  zeal  aspired  to  the 
conversion  of  his  teacher.  The  Doctor  patiently  con- 
ferred with  him  two  or  three  days,  but  remained  impreg- 
nable to  the  logic  of  his  zealous  visitor.  On  the  third  day, 
so  the  story  goes,  the  east  wind  was  specially  rough,  the 

Professor's  patience  forsook  him,  ''Mr.  B ,"  said  he, 

"I  made  up  my  mind  on  this  subject  before  you  were 

born."     This  argument  silenced  Brother  B ,  and  he 

retired  from  the  contest. 

Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  the  professor  of  Church  History 
and  Polity,  was  a  perfect  gentleman  of  the  old  school  in 
manners  and  character.  He  was  well  fitted  to  publish 
his  work  on  Clerical  Manners  and  Habits.  He  was  also 
a  sound  Presbyterian,  and  his  book  on  the  eldership  is  a 
most  valuable  volume.  Before  he  was  made  professor  at 
Princeton  he  had  been  one  of  the  leading  ministers  of 
New  York  City  at  a  time  when  those  words  signified  a 
great  deal  more  of  what  is  respectable  than  they  do  now. 
He  was  greatly  revered  by  all  us  students  for  his  urban- 
ity, learning  and  piety.  If  he  could  appear  now  in  the 
midst  of  the  Presbytery  of  ISTew  York  just  as  he  looked 
and  as  he  was  when  I  last  saw  him,  I  fear  he  would 
neither  recognize  nor  be  recognized  by  the  majority  of 
that  body. 

The  two  old  professors  differed  not  much  in  age,  but 
the  habits  of  their  life  were  very  different.  Dr.  Miller 
was  very  regular  and  methodical  in  all  his  ways.  He 
regularly  took  his  constitutional  walks.  Old  Dr.  Alex- 
ander almost  never  left  his  study.  When  I  have  seen  him 
at  great  intervals  of  time  slowly  walking  through  the 
streets  of  Princeton,  it  was  amusing  to  observe  how,  as  he 
strolled  along,  he  would  look  at  every  house  and  almost 
every  object  on  the  street,  just  as  you  might  expect  a 
man  who  had  not  for  twelve  months  seen  anything  but  the 
books  in  his  library.  It  was  said  that  Dr.  Miller  fre- 
quently remonstrated  with  him  for  neglecting  to  go  out 


76  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

and  get  the  fresh  air  and  stretch  his  limbs,  but  his  col- 
league always  replied  that  "bodily  exercise  profiteth  lit- 
tle." These  two  were  grand  old  men.  I  was  an  occa- 
sional visitor  in  their  families,  and  have  to  thank  both 
of  them  for  very  great  kindness  to  me.  I  went  to  Asia 
Minor  after  my  four  years'  course  in  the  Seminary,  and 
three  years  afterwards,  namely,  in  1837,  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  was  rent  by  the  new  school  controversy,  and 
the  excision  of  four  large  Western  synods.  Before  this 
took  place,  and  while  the  controversy  was  still  at  its 
height,  I  received  two  very  long  autograph  letters  from 
.  good  old  Dr.  Alexander,  each  letter  consisting  of  eight 
pages  about  a  foot  long,  and  fully  as  wide,  saying  that,  as 
I  was  in  foreign  lands,  he  would  try  and  keep  me  posted 
as  to  what  was  going  on.  I  still  have  these  letters  in  my 
possession. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  spent  some  time  at  the  Universities 
in  Germany  before  he  entered  on  his  professorship.  Dur- 
ing my  course  at  Princeton  he  w^as  our  teacher  in  He- 
brew and  the  Greek  of  the  jS^ew  Testament.  I  do  not 
remember  that,  besides  this  latter,  he  gave  us  any  special 
exegetical  instruction.  He  was  a  very  lovable  man,  mild 
■  and  sweet  and  gentle  wath  us  all,  but  I  do  not  think  he 
I  was  a  good  teacher.  He  roused  in  us  no  enthusiasm  for 
I  either  of  the  Bible  languages,  nor  was  he  a  good  preacher. 
He  gave  the  force  of  his  mind,  I  think,  to  the  study  of 
theology.  The  new  school  controversy  was  then  becom- 
ing quite  earnest.  Dr.  Hodge  was  editor  of  the  Biblical 
Repertory  and  Princeton  Review.  In  these  pages  ap- 
peared many  forcible  articles  from  his  pen.  Professor 
Stuart,  of  Andover  Seminary,  published  his  Commen- 
tary on  Romans,  which  took  the  JSTew  School  side.  Dr. 
Hodge  at  first  reviewed  with  great  ability  Professor  Stu- 
art's work,  and  then  subsequently  published  his  commen- 
tary on  the  same  epistle,  which,  I  believe,  to  a  great  extent 
neutralized  the  poison  there  was  in  the  Andover  book.  It 
w^as  a  great  success,  and  lifted  Dr.  Hodge  at  once  to  a 
high  rank  amongst  theologians.  Dr.  Hodge  treated  me 
with  great  kindness,  and  so  did  his  good  wife,  the  first 
Mrs.  Hodge.  Well  do  I  remember  the  future  Dr.  Archi- 
bald Hodge,  a  missionary  first  to  India,  and  then  the  dis- 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINAEY  LIFE.  77 

tingiiislicd  successor  of  his  father,  as  he  used  to  run  about 
the  Seminary  grounds  a  flaxen-haired,  blue-eyed,  rosy- 
cheeked  little  boy  of  seven  or  eight  summers,  and  one  or 
two  of  his  little  brothers  with  him.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge 
was  a  great  theologian.  His  three  ponderous  volumes 
on  Systematic  Theology  are  a  treasure  to  any  of  the  thou- 
sand ministers  who  were  his  students  while  he  lived,  and 
should  be  to  his  students  now  that  he  is  dead.  But  Dr. 
Hodge  never  studied  the  church  polity  of  Presbyterian- 
ism.  He  never  understood  the  subject.  His  debate  with 
Dr.  Thornwell  in  the  Assembly  at  Kochester,  the  last  one 
where  the  South  and  N'orth  portions  of  the  church  met 
together,  exhibited  this  deficiency  on  the  part  of  the  great 
teacher.  Much  more  apparent  he  made  it  when  he  under- 
took to  discuss  that  debate  in  the  Princeton  Review;  and 
when  Dr.  Thornwell  replied  to  him  in  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Review,  it  became  wofully  palpable.  Any  one 
can  see  for  himself  what  I  have  said,  for  both  productions 
appear  in  the  fourth  volume  of  Dr.  Thornwell's  collected 
writings,  where  also  appear  the  reports  of  their  discus- 
sion in  that  last  Assembly.  That  was  an  impressive  occa- 
sion, the  ISTorthern  church  and  her  Southern  sister  coming 
together  for  the  last  time  in  the  persons  of  their  two  lead- 
ing representatives,  and  taking  their  respective  stands  on 
very  great  ecclesiastical  issues  preparatory  to  their  sep- 
aration. 

At  Princeton  I  formed  the  acquaintance  of  quite  a 
number  of  young  men  who  subsequently  played  important 
parts  on  the  stage  of  life.  It  was  there  I  first  saw  Robert 
J.  Breckinridge,  though  I  did  not  become  at  all  ac- 
quainted with  him,  neither  was  he  one  of  those  young  men 
just  referred  to.  He  had  become  eminent  at  the  bar,  but 
was  converted,  gave  up  that  profession  and  entered  the 
Presbyterian  ministry,  and  spent  a  few  months  at  Prince- 
ton, not  as  a  student,  but  as  a  visitor.  He  was  conferring, 
I  suppose,  with  our  professors  about  church  matters.  At 
Princeton  I  first  knew  C.  C.  Jones,  the  famous  apostle  to 
the  negroes  in  Liberty  county,  Ga.,  afterwards  a  pro- 
fessor at  Columbia  Seminary,  and  subsequently  the  Home 
Missionary  Secretary  of  the  then  undivided  Presbyterian 
Church.     I  translated  into  the  Armenian  language  and 


78  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

published  at  Smyrna,  witli  certain  alterations  necessary 
to  accommodate  it  to  its  new  use,  the  catechism  of  simple 
gospel  truth  which  he  wrote  for  his  negro  disciples.  As 
a  primary  manual  for  Armenian  inquirers  and  believers 
perhaps  no  book  issued  by  our  press  in  Smyrna  could 
have  been  more  acceptable  or  more  useful.  It  seemed  to 
furnish  them  just  what  they  wanted  to  know  about  the 
fundamental  principles  of  Protestant  doctrine.  At 
Princeton  I  also  became  acquainted  pretty  well  with 
Henry  A.  Boardman,  and,  still  better,  with  Cortlandt 
Van  Rensselaer^  both  eminent  afterw^ards  as  Presbyte- 
rian ministers.  I  had  a  room  in  the  same  private  house 
with  Van  Rensselaer,  and  ate  with  him  at  the  same  table. 
He  was  one  of  ISTature's  noblemen.  It  was  he  whom,  when 
high  in  ecclesiastical  office  as  the  Secretary  of  one  of  the 
Boards,  and  wielding  deservedly  wide  influence  all  over 
the  church  from  his  well-known  ability,  but  especially 
from  his  exalted  character  as  a  man,  Dr.  Breckinridge 
pronounced  to  be  the  most  dangerous  man  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church — dangerous  because,  as  he  considered  him, 
infected  with  the  slack-twisted  Presbyterianism  still 
somewhat  prevalent  in  the  Old  School  party,  after  the 
excision  of  the  J^ew  School  body.  Dr.  Breckinridge 
meant  this  as  the  high  compliment  which  it  was.  He 
greatly  respected  Van  Rensselaer,  as  did  everybody  else. 
I  also  became  well  acquainted  with  Nathan  L.  Rice,  cele- 
brated afterwards  all  over  the  West  for  the  various  public 
controversies  which  he  successfully  maintained  with 
Campbell  and  others,  and  even  more  famous  perhaps  for 
the  distinguished  part  he  played  on  the  right  side  in  the 
'New  School  controversy  of  1835,  '36  and  '37.  Rice  was 
my  senior  by  several  years,  and  had  been  for  some  time 
in  the  Presbyterian  ministry  before  he  came  to  Princeton. 
Of  course,  he  was  able  to  teach  me,  and  he  did  teach  me 
many  things  in  theology  I  had  not  otherwise  learned. 
Our  acquaintance  was  intimate  and  proved  very  valuable 
to  me.  At  Princeton  I  again  met  with  my  old  Union  Col- 
lege friend,  Jo/in  McDowell,  the  man  of  God  of  an  humble 
spirit  and  a  loving  heart,  but  a  fiery  and  yet  most  tender 
zeal.  He  distinguished  himself  as  the  apostle  of  the  Five 
Points  in  New  York  City.      Then  there  was  John  C. 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  LIFE.  Y9 

Lowrie.  He  was  for  some  years  a  missionary  in  India,  or 
possibly  in  China,  where  his  brother  was  killed  by  Chinese 
pirates.  John  C.  Lowrie  was  afterwards  Secretary  for 
many  years  of  the  jSTorthern  Presbyterian  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions,  along  with  his  father,  the  eminent  Walter 
Lowrie,  Esq.,  and  also  our  John  Leighton  Wilson.  I  was 
very  intimate  with  both  Armstrong  and  Alexander,  who 
spent  their  lives  as  missionaries  to  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
Then  there  were  Joseph  Barr  and  John  B.  Pinney,  who 
were  sent  out  to  Africa  to  explore  the  country  with  a  view 
to  returning  afterwards  and  settling  there  as  missionaries. 
Pinney  was  an  enthusiastic  Christian  man,  of  fair  edu- 
cation, and  remarkable  energy  of  character.  I  think  he 
never  became  a  missionary  in  Africa,  but  his  whole  life 
was  devoted  to  work  for  that  continent  in  some  form  or 
other.  He  was  for  many  years  Governor  of  the  Liberian 
Republic  of  American  negroes  at  Monrovia,  on  the  coast 
of  Africa.  Joseph  Barr  was  a  much  stronger  man,  full 
of  foreign  missionary  zeal.  He  enthused  us  all  on  his 
return  from  his  exploring  trip  by  telling  us  of  some  mis- 
sionary to  whom  a  heathen  man  once  came,  asking,  "Are 
you  Jesus  Christ  man  ?"  ''My  brethren,"  said  Barr  to  us, 
"which  of  you  would  not  be  glad  to  go  and  be  a  Jesus 
Christ  man  amongst  some  heathen  people,  pointing  out  to 
them  the  way  of  salvation  ?"  But  Barr  was  never  priv- 
ileged to  go  himself.  A  very  short  time  after  he  returned 
from  Africa,  he  was  seized  with  fatal  sickness  and  called 
up.  I  have  not  yet  mentioned  the  name  of  Edward 
Tonge  Buist,  with  whom  I  enjoyed  one  of  the  most 
intimate  and  profitable  friendships  I  had  at  Princeton. 
His  was  a  vigorous  and  active  intellect,  and  he  was  very 
fond  of  discussion  on  theological  points.  We  helped  to 
sharpen  in  one  another  the  spirit  of  inquiry  and  research, 
for,  in  after  years,  he  frequently  told  me  that  mine  was 
perhaps  the  most  profitable  friendship  he  had  ever 
formed.  He  and  I  were  partners  in  a  Sunday-school,  in 
conducting  which  we  alternated  every  Sunday  afternoon, 
some  four  miles  from  the  Seminary.  This  plan  of  use- 
fulness to  others  prevailed  greatly  amongst  the  students, 
and  was  very  advantageous  also  to  themselves.  At  one 
period  of  my  Princeton  course,  I  belonged  to  a  committee 


80  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

of  students  who  were  conveyed  every  Sunday  morning- 
down  to  the  city  of  Trenton,  some  ten  or  twelve  miles  be- 
low Princeton,  where  we  had  a  Sunday-school  among  the 
convicts  in  the  State's  prison.  This  was  another  oppor- 
tunity of  usefulness  to  others  and  not  less  to  ourselves. 
While  we  were  thus  engaged,  the  Asiatic  cholera  visited 
the  United  States.  There  were  a  number  of  cases  in  the 
New  Jersey  State's  Prison.  Our  Sunday-school  teachers, 
nevertheless,  kept  up  the  school.  We  frequently  had  oc- 
casion to  sit  by  the  bedside  of  the  sick  and  dying,  giving 
them  religious  instruction  and  comfort. 

All  these  my  early  friends  at  Princeton,  T  believe,  have 
passed  over  the  river  before  me ;  I  think  I  have  survived 
them  all.  But  I  have  not  yet  named  the  man — and  he, 
too,  has  already  passed  over — who  more  affected  my  fu- 
ture life  than  all  these  others  put  together.  This  was  my 
class-mate,  William  M.  Thomson,  a  Northwestern  Pres- 
byterian, a  man  of  rough  exterior,  but  he  wielded  a  pol- 
ished pen,  had  plenty  of  brains  and  became  a  distin- 
guished missionary  for  a  half  century  amongst  the  Arabs 
in  Syria.  He  was  the  author  of  The  Land  and  the  Booh 
and  other  very  valuable  works. 

Thomson  said  to  me  one  afternoon,  "Adger,  let  us 
walk  down  to  the  river  and  take  a  bath."  As  we  were  re- 
turning together,  he  asked  if  I  had  ever  thought  of  becom- 
ing a  foreign  missionary.  I  replied  that  we  were  in  such 
great  need  of  more  ministers  at  the  South  that  it  had 
never  entered  my  mind  to  consider  that  subject.  We 
talked  over  the  subject  as  we  walked  back,  and,  repairing 
to  my  room  together,  we  continued  our  conference  till 
bed-time.  The  subject  thus  casually  brought  to  my  at- 
tention, took  an  immediate  and  very  strong  hold  upon  me. 
I  saw  at  once  that  great  as  might  be  the  need  of  more  min- 
isters in  my  own  State  every  heathen  nation  was  incom- 
parably more  destitute.  The  deep  interest  thus  excited 
never  left  me  for  a  day  until  after  years  of  careful  and 
prayerful  consideration  I  was  led  to  offer  my  services  to 
the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Mis- 
sions. They  consisted  of  Congregationalists  and  Presby- 
terians together.  At  that  period  our  church  had  no  sep- 
arate organization  for  foreign  work.     A  society  had  just 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  LIFE.  81 

arisen  somewhere  in  Pennsylvania,  named  the  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society,  which  in  after  years  came  to 
represent  the  whole  Presbyterian  body.  But  at  the  time 
of  my  engagement  with  the  Boston  Board  I  knew  little  or 
nothing  of  it. 

I  found  out  after  some  time  that  my  friend  Thomson 
belonged  to  a  secret  association  of  Princeton  men,  all 
specially  interested  in  foreign  missions,  who  made  it  their 
business  to  bring  that  subject  to  the  attention  of  indi- 
viduals in  their  respective  classes.  They  were  thus  a  body 
of  propagandists.  ISTone  of  those  whom  they  approached 
suspected  that  they  had  been  selected  to  be  operated  on. 
Still  later  I  found  out  that  within  this  informal  associa- 
tion there  was  another  more  formal  and  more  secret  one, 
consisting  only  of  those  who  had  made  up  their  mind  to 
embark  in  the  work.  Thus  there  was  a  wheel  within  a 
wheel,  and  both  of  them  worked  efficiently.  Old  Dr. 
Alexander,  several  times,  met  with  us  in  this  inside  organ- 
ization, and  we  got  from  him  a  great  deal  of  useful  in- 
struction and  advice.  We  also  had  a  "Society  of  Inquiry 
on  Missions,"  which  held  public  meetings,  and  different 
committees  read  reports  about  the  various  heathen  lands. 

I  entered  the  Seminary  September,  1829,  and  con- 
tinued a  member  of  it  until  the  close  of  the  Seminary 
year,  1833,  when  I  was  licensed  by  ISTew  Brunswick  Pres- 
bytery. But  we  had  a  vacation  of  three  or  four  weeks  in 
the  spring.  In  the  spring  of  1831  I  visited  my  home  in 
Charleston,  and  there,  in  the  good  providence  of  God,  I 
first  saw  my  future  wife.  Miss  Elizabeth  Keith  Shrews- 
bury. I  was  returning  from  a  prayer-meeting  with  my 
mother  and  sister  Margaret.  At  the  corner  of  Mary  and 
King  streets  my  sister  observed  the  above  named  young 
lady,  with  whom  she  had  recently  become  very  intimately 
acquainted,  on  the  other  side  of  King  street,  engaged  in 
the  duty  of  tract  distribution.  She  called  to  her  to  come  ^ 
over.  It  required  some  little  urging  to  get  her  consent, 
but  she  came.  My  sister  said  to  me,  "ISTow  you  shall  see 
blushes,"  and  I  saw  them.  I  was  introduced  to  her,  and 
with  me  it  was  love  at  first  sight.  My  sister  persuaded 
her  to  go  up  home  with  us  to  take  tea,  and  then  accom- 
pany us  to  another  religious  service.     I  walked  with  the 


J 


82  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

blooming  stranger,  and  my  first  impressions  were  deep- 
ened. I  visited  her  several  times,  and  every  Sunday  took 
pains  to  slip  into  the  infant  school-room,  where  she  taught 
some  fifty  little  pupils.  I  stood  at  the  door  behind  her 
back,  and  was  charmed  with  her  methods  of  interesting 
and  instructing  those  little  ones.  My  sister  very  soon 
charged  me  with  being  fascinated.  I  told  her  I  certainly 
was,  "and  now,"  said  I,  "as  you  sympathize  strongly  with 
me  in  being  attracted  to  a  foreign  missionary  life,  you 
must  see  if,  when  I  return  to  the  Seminary,  you  cannot 
interest  your  friend's  mind  in  the  same  subject,  and,  as 
you  are  occasionally  exchanging  notes  with  one  another, 
you  must  sometimes  send  me  one  of  her  notes  for  my  in- 
spection." The  following  spring  I  returned  again  to 
Charleston,  and  after  two  or  three  interviews  with  the 
lady  who  on  my  previous  visit  had  so  deeply  interested 
me,  my  mind  was  made  up,  that  she  was  the  one  I  wished 
to  marry.  But  I  did  not  then  immediately  propose  to 
her. 

While  my  thoughts  were  thus  absorbed  with  the  great 
subject  of  the  foreign  propagation  of  the  Christian  faith, 
and  while  I  was  very  seriously  engaged  in  making  prepa- 
rations, if  providentially  permitted  to  take  part  in  that 
work,  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  but  especially  the  city 
of  Charleston,  was  agitated  to  its  very  centre  with  the 
question  of  nullification.  This  agitation,  if  I  am  well  in- 
formed, began  in  1824,  when  Judge  William  Smith,  the 
old  leader  of  the  Crawford  party  in  South  Carolina, 
offered  in  the  Legislature  at  Columbia  certain  anti-bank, 
anti-internal  improvement  and  anti-tariff  resolutions. 
My  father  was  a  great  admirer  of  Mr.  Crawford,  and  also 
of  Judge  William  Smith.  Judge  Smith  in  those  days 
was  Mr.  Calhoun's  stiff  State  Rights  opponent,  at  whom 
this  whole  original  movement  was  aimed.  Judge  Smith 
triumphed  for  the  time,  obtained  the  party  predomi- 
'nance  in  the  State,  and  was  sent  back,  as  he  desired,  to 
his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate.  But  logic  was  not 
the  Judge's  fort,  as  it  was  Mr.  Calhoun's.  The  South 
Carolina  resolutions  of  Judge  Smith  were  levelled  against 
the  general  government  usurpations,  as  he  thought  them, 
but  his  abler  opponent  educed  from  his  adversary's  own 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  LIFE, 


83 


principles  a  remedy  he  had  not  thought  of,  and  which  was 
to  end  in  a  direct  conilict  between  the  Federal  and  State 
authorities.  The  discussions  which  for  six  years  had  been 
agitating  the  State  in  1831  culminated,  and  the  urgent 
issue  was  whether  it  was  expedient  to  interpose  the  sov- 
ereign power  of  South  Carolina  to  prevent  the  execution 
of  the  tariff  laws.  There  were  great  and  noble  men  in 
lead  of  both  sides.  The  conflict  enlisted  every  person, 
great  and  small,  male  and  female.  My  father  belonged  to 
the  party  which  claimed  the  name  of  the  Union  and  State 
Eights  party.  Like  multitudes  of  other  very  busy  men, 
he  turned  aside  largely  from  his  daily  occupations  to  the 
great  question  which  was  convulsing  our  State.  He  was 
very  desirous  to  have  me  attend  some  of  the  public  meet- 
ings, but  my  mind  was  too  much  preoccupied  with  still 
greater  questions.  Yet,  one  morning  I  was  terrified  when 
I  heard  him  relate  what  had  happened  the  previous  night. 
Each  party  was  having  a  large  gathering  of  its  followers. 
It  was  evident  that  a  bloody  encounter  would  ensue  should 
the  opposing  crowds  happen  to  meet  upon  the  dissolution 
of  their  assemblies.  That  eminent  citizen,  Joel  R.  Poin- 
sett, was  just  at  that  time  the  leader  of  the  Union  party 
in  Charleston.  At  the  close  of  their  meeting,  and  when 
his  crowd  were  about  to  go  forth  in  the  expectation  of  a 
fearful  rencounter  with  their  opponents  that  night,  Mr. 
Poinsett,  taking  out  a  key  from  his  pocket,  opened  a  door 
leading  from  the  hall  where  they  were  assembled  into  an 
adjoining  apartment,  which  was  in  fact  a  spacious  closet. 
He  had  had  a  large  supply  of  clubs  stored  up  there  for 
just  this  very  occasion,  and  he  invited  every  one  of  his  fol- 
lowers to  help  himself  to  a  club.  Thus  armed  they  issued 
forth,  and,  behold !  as  they  marched  along,  there  were 
seen  on  the  other  side  of  one  of  our  streets  the  many  hun- 
dreds who  belonged  to  the  other  party.  Each  party 
marched  and  counter-marched  on  each  side  of  the  street, 
and  one  party  certainly,  and  the  other  party  probably, 
were  both  prepared  for  a  bloody  encounter.  There  was 
jeering  on  both  sides,  but  the  leaders,  a  kind  providence 
watching  over  our  city,  managed  to  prevent  their  fol- 
lowers from  coming  to  a  contest  in  the  middle  of  the 
street.     I  listened  with  trembling  thankfulness  to  this 


84  MY  LIFE  AND  TIME§. 

narrative.  Lofty  and  grand  is  patriotic  sentiment,  when 
it  is  sincere,  Duice  et  decorum  est  pro  patria  mori.  But 
alas !  that  every  true  man  can  be  so  easily  and  so  power- 
fully roused  about  his  country's  welfare,  and  yet  Chris- 
tian men  are  generally  so  indifferent  to  the  grandest  en- 
terprise that  ever  stirred  the  human  heart — the  enterprise 
of  proclaiming  to  the  whole  of  this  ruined  world  the 
glorious  gospel  of  salvation. 

As  intimated  above,  my  sister  Margaret,  who  had 
shortly  before  that  period,  renounced  the  world  and  de- 
voted herself  to  her  Lord,  had  become  very  much  inter- 
ested in  the  subject  of  foreign  missions,  so  much  so  that 
she  fully  intended  entering  on  that  work  with  me.  When 
addressed  subsequently  by  her  future  husband,  she  had 
objected  that  her  intention  was  to  go  on  the  foreign  work 
with  her  brother  John,  he  instantly  replied,  "There  will 
be  no  difficulty  on  that  point."  He  added  he  would 
gladly  go  along  with  us,  that  before  crossing  the  Atlantic 
he  had  offered  his  services  to  the  London  Missionary  So- 
ciety, but  it  was  considered  that  his  constitution  was 
inadequate  to  such  a  life.  He  became  and  continued  for 
forty  years  pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  church.  If 
the  South  Carolina  Synod  has  been  ever  since  about  1833 
peculiarly  alive  in  some  degree  (but,  oh !  how  small  that 
degree)  to  the  claims  of  the  foreign  mission  work,  I  here 
record  what  will  be  generally  acknowledged  by  those  who 
know  best,  that  this  has  been  due,  through  Almighty 
grace,  in  very  large  measure,  to  the  missionary  zeal  of 
Dr.  Thomas  Smyth.  My  sister  Susan  also  became  very 
early  interested  in  the  idea  of  going  on  a  mission,  but 
her  constitution  forbade  the  carrying  out  of  such  an  idea, 
and,  as  afterwards  plainly  appeared,  her  true  vocation 
was  to  stay  by  her  parents,  and  especially  to  take  care  of 
her  father  in  his  extreme  old  age.  As  to  my  loving 
mother,  she  never  betrayed  to  me  the  slightest  unwilling- 
ness to  consent  to  what  I  was  proposing ;  she  was  far  too 
devoted  a  Christian  to  do  that.  But  how  was  it  going 
to  be  with  my  father  ?  The  most  delicate  and  difficult 
duty  of  my  life  had  been  for  me  to  address  him  privately 
and  personally  on  the  subject  of  his  soul's  salvation ;  and 
he  had  listened  to  me  kindly  and  heard  patiently  all  I 


THEOLOGICAL,  SEMINARY  LIFE.  85 

had  to  say ;  and  he  had  subsequently,  and,  I  feel  sure,  in 
all  sincerity,  made  a  public  profession  of  his  faith  in 
Christ.  But  here  now  was  another  delicate  and  difficult 
subject  for  me  to  bring  before  his  mind,  and  what  would 
he  say  about  it  ?  He  must  have  been  aware  of  my  being 
interested  in  the  general  subject.  I  had  never  consulted 
him  respecting  my  entering  the  ministry  and  going  to 
Princeton  to  prepare  for  it,  because  from  my  early  child- 
hood it  was  always  predicted  by  my  godly  old  grand- 
mother that  I  was  to  be  a  minister,  and  that  seemed  to  be 
always  taken  for  granted  by  my  father.  But  to  go  as  a 
missionary  to  some  foreign  country,  never  to  return  home 
(for  three-score  years  ago  that  was  always  understood  to 
be  the  foreign  missionary's  lot,  and  no  idea  of  a  furlough 
to  return  for  a  year  was  ever  thought  of),  this,  I  say,  was 
a  very  different  question  from  entering  the  ministry  for 
service  in  this  country.  How,  therefore,  was  my  father 
going  to  receive  what  I  had  to  say  on  this  subject'^  I  was 
led  to  introduce  the  subject  to  him  in  connection  with 
asking  his  consent  to  my  engaging  myself  to  the  young 
lady  I  was  in  love  with.  He  had  seen  her  frequently  at 
his  house  with  his  daughter  Margaret ;  she  had  been  in- 
troduced to  him,  of  course,  but  he  was  a  very  busy  man, 
and  his  personal  acquaintance  with  her  was  really  very 
slight.  I  told  him  of  my  attachment  to  her  and  my  wish 
respecting  her,  enlarging  considerably,  of  course,  as  I 
went  on  upon  my  high  estimate  of  her  character  and 
merits.  I  saw  the  characteristic,  merry  twinkle  in  his 
eye,  as  he  replied  to  me,  "Oh !  there  remain  always  as 
good  fish  in  the  sea  as  ever  were  caught."  I  remarked 
that  "a  fisherman  always  angles  for  the  kind  of  fish  that 
he  prefers  to  have."  When  I  told  him  that  I  felt  much 
impressed  with  the  idea  that  I  ought  to  devote  my  life  to 
the  foreign  service  of  the  church,  and  that  it  was  not 
every  young  lady  that  would  be  willing  to  go,  or  that 
would  be  qualified  to  go  with  me,  he  at  once  became  very 
serious,  expressing  his  high  opinion  of  Miss  Shrews- 
bury's character,  but  saying  that  he  thought  it  would  be 
wiser  to  postpone  the  decision  of  my  own  future  course  of 
life,  and  also  of  my  engagement  to  her.  He  said  that  he 
would  prefer  my  finishing  my  studies  at  Princeton,  and 


86  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

then  going  to  Germany  for  some  years,  that  I  might  pros- 
ecute them  there.  Oh !  that  father  of  mine  !  How  kindly 
his  feelings  always  were  towards  me  and  what  lofty  ex- 
pectations he  always  cherished  regarding  my  career.  It 
often  pains  me  to  think  how  much  I  disappointed  him. 
It  pains  me  even  now,  and  perhaps  even  more  than  it  ever 
did,  as  I  look  back  upon  all  these  things  through  the  long 
vista  of  many  years.  I  had  not  at  that  time  committed 
myself  either  to  Miss  Shrewsbury  or  to  any  person  on  the 
subject  of  my  becoming  a  foreign  missionary.  But  the 
feeling  of  duty  within  me  was  very  strong,  and  an).ounted 
very  nearly,  though  not  altogether  to  a  decisive  conviction. 
I  saw  very  plainly  that  the  generous  proposals  of  my 
father  would  completely  revolutionize  all  my  inward 
tendencies.  I  felt  no  special  aspirations  after  eminent 
scholarship.  I  saw  and  felt  that  the  whole  world,  as  the 
Apostle  John  said,  lieth  in  wickedness ;  that  there  ought 
to  be  many,  while  there  were  but  few,  volunteers  for  for- 
eign service ;  that,  while  I  might  be  needed  at  the  South, 
there  was  incomparably  greater  need  in  heathen  lands ; 
that  there  was  no  particular  obstacle,  as  with  some  others, 
in  the  way  of  my  entering  on  this  work ;  and  all  these 
views  having  long  and  deeply  impressed  themselves  on 
my  heart,  I  could  not  easily  dismiss  them.  I  do  not  re- 
member in  what  terms  I  responded  to  my  noble  father's 
gracious  proposition,  but  I  hope  I  properly  expressed  my 
sense  of  his  goodness  to  me.  But  I  recollect  telling  him, 
as  we  closed  the  conversation,  that  I  understood  him  as 
having  no  positive  objection  to  my  making  the  engage- 
ment I  had  in  view,  in  case  I  should  finally  conclude  on 
that  step.  Many  years  have  passed  and  memory  has  not 
recorded  distinctly  what  the  words  of  his  answer  were, 
but  I  felt  sure  that  he  did  not  mean  to  oppose,  and  it  was 
not  long  before  the  engagement  was  made.  I  returned  to 
Princeton,  and  spent  one  year  more  there.  In  the  mean- 
time, I  had  offered  my  services  to  the  American  Board, 
and  was  accepted,  and  not  long  afterwards  was  appointed 
a  missionary  to  the  Armenians.  I  spent  the  winter  of 
1833  and  spring  of  1834  in  visiting  the  Presbyterian 
churches  of  our  synod,  and  presenting  the  claims  of  the 
foreign  mission  work  upon  them. 


OUE  MARRIAGE  AND  SAILING  FOR  SMYRNA.  b  i 

Some  of  my  ^randcliildreii,  when  reading  the  account 
I  have  just  given,  may  be  inclined  to  wonder  that  I  did 
not  confer  with  my  father  when  I  first  began  to  consider 
seriously  the  question  of  foreign  work.  The  Apostle 
Paul's  example  shows  that  there  are  some  questions 
where  we  may  not  confer  with  flesh  and  blood.  My  father 
at  that  initial  period  was  not  a  professing  Christian,  and 
the  question  with  me  was  a  question  of  conscience.  More- 
over, both  my  father  and  my  mother,  whilst  holding 
firmly  in  their  hands  the  reins  of  parental  authority,  and, 
whilst  we  all  looked  up  to  them  with  profound  reverence, 
and  whilst  my  father  especially  had  never  laid  the  weight 
of  one  finger  upon  any  one  of  his  children,  because  one 
word  from  him  was  absolute  law ;  still  they  had,  both  of 
them,  always  encouraged  us  in  regard  to  some  matters  to 
think  for  ourselves.  And  then  I  had  been  sent  far  away 
to  college  in  the  State  of  ISTew  York  for  three  years,  and 
was  afterwards  far  away  again  in  JSTew  Jersey  at  the  Sem- 
inary for  four  years,  so  that  I  had  been  trained  as  it  were 
to  rely  on  the  resources  of  my  own  judgment.  In  my  own 
case,  as  a  father,  I  pursued  a  somewhat  similar  course. 
Whilst  endeavoring  to  instruct  my  children  as  to  all  that 
was  right  or  wrong,  I  never  tried  to  have  them  become 
mere  machines.  I  encouraged  in  each  of  them  freedom  of 
thought  and,  to  a  proper  extent,  freedom  of  action. 

Becoming  naturally  much  better  acquainted  with  his 
future  daughter-in-law  after  our  engagement,  my  father 
came  to  be  extremely  fond  of  her,  and,  in  fact,  before  very 
long,  began  to  treat  her  as  one  of  his  o^vn  daughters.  We 
were  married  on  the  29th  day  of  June,  1834.  The  time 
drew  nigh  for  my  ordination,  and  in  the  Second  Presby- 
terian church  I  was  solemnly  set  apart  by  the  Charleston 
Union  Presbytery  to  the  work  of  foreign  missions.  An 
immense  audience  gathered  to  witness  the  laying  on  of 
the  Presbytery's  hands.  Before  setting  out  I  wrote  and 
published  a  farewell  letter  to  my  friends  throughout  the 
State,  giving  them  my  reasons  for  the  step  I  was  taking. 
It  was  a  day  of  weeping  when  my  wife  and  I  parted  from 
her  relatives  and  mine.  My  father  accompanied  us  to 
ISTew  York  and  Boston.  So  did  my  brother  James.  The 
little  brig  that  was  to  carry  us  to  Smyrna  was  not  quite 


88  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

ready  to  sail.  We  had  also  some  purchases  for  our  outfit 
to  make  in  Boston.  Having  no  occupation  whilst  we  were 
making  our  purchases,  the  time  hung  heavy  on  my 
father's  hands.  I  saw  that  he  was  much  distressed  at  the 
prospect  of  separation,  and  at  last  I  begged  him  to  leave 
us.  He  started  home  early  the  next  morning  by  stage. 
I  went  down  with  him  and  saw  him  in  the  stage,  and  my 
brother  James  subsequently  informed  me  that,  as  they 
started  off,  my  father  laid  his  hands  on  the  back  of  the 
seat  before  him,  and  bowed  his  head  upon  his  hands  and 
wept  audibly  and  profusely.  As  for  me,  that  was  the 
bitterest  hour  of  my  life — up  to  that  period.  I  had  left 
my  mother  with  my  father  to  take  care  of  her ;  but  the 
thought  that  oppressed  me  -was,  who  was  I  leaving  behind 
me  to  take  care  of  my  father  ? 

The  ancestors  of  my  wife  were  English.  Two  brothers 
by  the  name  of  Stone  came  to  this  country  very  long  ago 
from  Bermuda.  One  of  these  brothers  married  a  Miss 
Leycraft,  who  was  my  wife's  great-grandmother,  and 
their  daughter.  Miss  Elizabeth  Stone,  for  whom  my  wife 
was  named,  married  John  Conyers,  Avho  died  in  1709. 
Their  daughter  married  Edward  Shrewsbury,  and  they 
were  the  parents  of  my  wife.  John  Conyers  and  his  wnfe, 
and  also  Edward  Shrewsbury  and  his  wife,  lie  in  the 
Archdale  Street  church-yard,  Charleston,  S.  C. 

As  to  the  ancestry  of  my  wife's  father,  Edward  Shrews- 
bury, that  also  was  pure  English.  Dr.  Joseph  Johnson, 
in  his  valuable  volume,  says  two  wealthy  young  English- 
men named  Shrewsbury  came  to  this  country  with  one 
sister  before  the  Revolutionary  war.  Edward,  one  of 
these  two  brothers,  was  a  Royalist.  He  had  a  right  to  be 
loyal  to  his  king  and  his  owm  country.  Stephen,  the  other 
brother,  was  an  equally  earnest  Whig,  and  bore  arms  in 
the  Revolutionary  war.  Their  sister  was  married  to  Jere- 
miah Dickinson.  These  two  brothers,  Stephen  being  the 
older,  carried  on,  after  the  Revolutionary  war,  the  busi- 
ness of  ship-building  on  Shrewsbury's  Wharf,  afterwards 
known  as  Union  Wharves.  In  an  old  list  of  members  of 
the  Charleston  Fellowship  Society,  Stephen  Shrewsbury's 
name  is  recorded  in  1770  or  thereafter.  He  had  three 
sons,  Stephen,  Edward  and  Jeremiah.     Stephen  Shrews- 


MY  WIFE  S  ANCESTRY.  0\) 

bur  J,  Jr.'s,  name  is  found  on  the  list  of  members  of  the 
Fellowship  Society  in  1790  or  thereafter.  The  posterity 
of  Jeremiah  Shrewsbury  are  still  living  in  Alabama. 
Edward  Shrewsbury  had  five  children — Elizabeth  Keith 
(my  wife),  Anne  HoUinshed,  John  Stoney,  Edward  and 
Maria.  Stephen  Shrewsbury,  Jr.,  married  his  cousin. 
Miss  Dickinson.  Two  daughters  were  born  to  him — 
Louisa  and  Caroline ;  Louisa,  afterwards  Mrs.  Dr.  Moul- 
trie, and  Caroline,  who  married  her  cousin,  Jeremiah 
Dickinson.  Stephen  Shrewsbury  left  a  considerable  for- 
tune to  his  two  daughters,  but  in  case  they  died  without 
children  it  was  to  go  to  the  families  of  his  two  brothers, 
Edward  and  Jeremiah.  Stephen  died  in  1815,  and  in 
1882  the  property  at  last  came  to  my  wife  and  her 
brothers  and  sisters,  and  to  their  Alabama  cousins.  I 
will  hereafter  give  a  much  more  full  account  of  this 
matter. 

My  wife's  mother  was  a  member  of  the  Circular 
church,  Charleston.  Her  father  was  for  many  years  one 
of  a  ship-building  firm,  when  Charleston  carried  on  that, 
kind  of  business.  The  firm  was  Pritchard  and  Shrews- 
bury. But  their  business  declined  with  the  decline  of 
ship-building  in  the  old  city.  My  wife's  father  died  of 
paralysis  in  his  old  age.  He  never  made  a  public  pro- 
fession of  religion,  but  I  have  in  my  possession  a  long 
and  very  touching  letter  written  to  my  wife,  which  bears 
very  ample  evidence  that  for  some  time  before  his  death 
he  was  a  very  humble  believer  in  our  Lord  and  Saviour. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Life  Among  the  Armenians. 
1834-1846. 

THE  brig  Padang  sailed  from  Boston,  Massachusetts, 
on  her  voyage  to  Smyrna,  Asia  Minor,  on  the  2d 
day  of  August,  1834.  She  carried  seven  missionary  pas- 
sengers— the  Rev.  Mr.  Merrick,  missionary  to  the  Per- 
sians; Rev.  Samuel  R.  Houston  and  wife,  missionaries 
to  Greece ;  Rev.  Lorenzo  Pease  and  wife,  missionaries  to 
the  Island  of  Cyprus,  and  myself  and  wife,  missionaries 
to  the  Armenians.  Mr.  Merrick  was  originally  from 
New  England,  and  studied  theology  at  Columbia  Semi- 
nary. Mr.  Pease  was  from  ISTew  England,  and  was  a 
Congregationalist.  Mr.  Houston  was  from  Virginia,  a 
Presbyterian,  and  got  his  theological  education  at  Union 
Seminary,  Virginia,  and  partly  at  Princeton. 

The  Padang  had  very  poor  accommodations  for  so 
many  passengers,  on  such  a  long  voyage.  But  it  was  hard 
to  find  a  vessel  setting  out  from  Boston  to  Smyrna  for  a 
cargo  of  figs  that  could  furnish  any  better.  It  had  only 
one  small  cabin  of  four  berths,  with  two  small  state-rooms 
attached.  Mr.  ]\Ierrick  was  given,  of  course,  the  main 
cabin  for  his  accommodation.  There  was,  therefore, 
necessary  for  the  third  married  couple  a  small  state-room 
cut  off  from  the  hold  of  the  vessel.  It  allowed  room  for  a 
double  bed,  with  just  additional  space  enough  for  one 
chair.  But  it  was  not  high  enough  for  a  person  to  stand 
in  it  upright.  Of  the  two  original  state-rooms,  one  was 
considerably  better  than  the  other,  the  second  one  being 
really  very  much  contracted  in  its  dimensions.  We  three 
young  men  had  to  determine  how  these  three  apartments 
Avere  to  be  distributed  amongst  us  and  our  wives.  We 
were  all  very  polite  and  unselfish,  and  each  one  of  us,  of 
course,  declined  the  best  state-room  in  favor  of  the  other 
two.  Dr.  Wisner,  Secretary  of  the  Board,  had  charge  of 
our  debarkation,  and  overheard  our  talk  on  this  subject. 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  91 

"jSTow,"  said  he,  "my  young  brethren,  this  will  not  do  at 
all.  You  are  none  of  you  sea-sick  yet,  but  when  you  see 
your  wiv^es  begin  to  suffer  from  this  malady,  this  present 
generosity  of  feeling  will  all  vanish.  You  must  draw  lots, 
and  so  let  the  matter  be  determined  providentially  for 
each  one  of  you."  We  drew  lots,  and  Houston  got  the 
best  room.  Pease  second  best,  and  my  poor  wife  and  I  got 
the  worst  one.  She  was  desperately  sea-sick  nearly  the 
whole  sixty-four  days'  passage,  and  sometimes  I  was 
afraid  that  her  strength  would  not  hold  out  to  reach 
Smyrna. 

Upon  our  arrival  there,  the  Eev.  Daniel  Temple,  the 
American  Board's  missionary  to  the  Greeks  there,  with 
Mr.  Homan  Halleck  in  charge  of  their  printing  ofEce, 
came  on  board  to  welcome  us.  But  there  came  also  the 
Rev.  Josiah  Brewer,  not  of  that  Board,  and  I  accepted  his 
invitation  to  go  to  his  house,  while  the  others  found  ac- 
conunodations  with  Mr.  Temple  and  Mr.  Halleck.  We 
found  Mrs.  Brewer  a  very  charming  lady,  and  she  and 
my  wife  immediately  became  very  close  friends,  and  the 
friendship  continued  for  years  until  Mr.  Brewer  and  his 
family  removed  to  America.  Mrs.  Brewer  was  the 
daughter  of  an  old  Congregationalist  minister  at  Lenox, 
Massachusetts.  Her  brother,  David  Dudley  Field,  was 
an  eminent  lawyer  in  IsTew  York,  and  another  of  her 
brothers  is  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  Her  little  son,  David  Josiah,  whom  I  knew  in 
Smyrna  as  a  little  fellow  with  a  big  head,  I  encountered 
in  1890,  while  on  my  way  to  Kansas  City,  in  the  mag- 
nificent person  of  the  Hon.  David  J.  Brewer,  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  United  States,  and  chairman  of 
the  committee  appointed  by  President  Cleveland  to  in- 
vestigate the  territorial  questions  between  Venezuela  and 
Great  Britain.  I  happened  to  sit  near  him,  and  was 
attracted  by  his  fine  countenance  and  grand  bodily 
presence.  Finding  out  the  name  of  this  remarkable  per- 
sonage, I  introduced  myself  to  him,  and  then  introduced 
him  to  my  wife  and  daughter  Susan,  the  latter  born,  like 
himself,  in  Smyrna,  to  whom  he  expressed  the  pleasure 
he  had  in  meeting  one  of  his  fellow-citizens. 

I  had  been  sent  out  as  a  missionary  to  the  Armenians, 


92  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  Eev.  William  Goodell  and  the  Kev.  H.  G.  O. 
Dwight  having  preceded  me  as  the  first  missionaries  to 
that  people,  and  the  Rev.  Cjrus  Hamlin  having  followed 
me  as  the  fourth  one.  But  who  are  the  Armenians  ?  The 
Armenians  are  undoubtedly  descended  from  Japhet,  the 
second  son  of  jSToah.  On  no  account  can  they  be  consid- 
ered either  a  Semitic  or  a  Hamitic  race.  Their  physiog- 
nomy distinguishes  them  from  the  children  of  Shem,  and 
their  color  from  those  of  Ham.  The  Rev.  Frederick 
Davis  Greene,  author  of  the  Armenian  Crisis  in  Turkey, 
a  very  competent  authority,  says,  "Their  manners  and 
customs,  as  well  as  their  religious  beliefs  in  heathenism, 
were  similar  to  those  of  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans,  of 
the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  still  later  of  the  Parthians." 
But  it  is  their  ancient  language,  among  the  very  most  an- 
cient of  the  whole  world,  which  most  distinctly  points 
them  out  as  the  sons  of  Japhet.  Scholars  have  frequently 
asserted  its  affinity  with  the  Indo-Germanic  tongues.  I  can 
affirm  from  a  somewhat  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
Armenian,  both  ancient  and  modern,  that  it  has  a  very  dis- 
tinct relation  to  the  Latin  language  in  the  construction  of 
its  verbs,  as  well  as  in  the  termination  of  that  large  class  of 
its  nouns  which  end  in  tio.  Yet  no  person  hearing  the 
Armenian  spoken  could  possibly  imagine  that  there  was 
the  least  resemblance  to  the  Latin  in  either  of  these  re- 
spects or  any  other.  Certainly  the  rough  and  harsh 
guttural  sounds  of  the  Armenian  language  would  utterly 
forbid  his  entertaining  such  a  thought.  This  feature  of 
the  language  is  not  at  all  due  to  its  being,  as  commonly 
now  spoken  by  the  people,  so  much  mixed  with  Turkish 
words,  because  the  Turkish  language  deals  comparatively 
in  smooth  sounds. 

The  Armenians  trace  their  history  to  the  very  remotest 
antiquity.  Their  original  country  is  referred  to  in  Gen- 
esis as  Ararat,  the  mountain  where  l^oah's  ark  rested 
after  the  flood.  In  2  Kings  xix.  the  parricidal  sons  of 
Sennacherib  are  said  to  have  fled  to  Armenia.  Ezekiel 
also  speaks  of  Tyre  being  furnished  with  horses  and  mules 
from  the  land  of  Togarmah,  and  the  tradition  of  the  Ar- 
menians, as  I  have  myself  heard  it  stated  by  the  highly 
educated  amongst  them,  derives  their  descent,  as  well  as 


LIFE  AMO:SJG  THE  arme:n^iaj:^s.  93 

their  name,  from  this  same  Togarmah,  a  son  of  Gomer, 
one  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  Japhetic  line. 

Armenia  was  included  in  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  and  afterwards  submitted  to  the  rule  of  Syria. 
In  190  B.  C,  when  Antiochus  the  Great  was  defeated  by 
Scipio,  Armenia  gave  refuge  to  the  exiled  Hannibal. 
Armenia  lying  between  the  Persian  and  the  Roman  Em- 
pires, was  continually  preyed  on  by  both,  and  the  Roman 
historian,  Tacitus,  says  that  her  people  "were  almost 
always  at  war ;  with  the  Romans  through  hatred,  and 
with  the  Parthians  through  jealousy."  Under  Theodo- 
sius  the  Great,  390  A.  D.,  Armenia  was  divided  between 
the  Romans  and  Persians.  Subsequently  it  was  divided 
between  the  Greek  Empire  and  the  Saracens.  But  in 
lO-iS  the  whole  eastern  frontier  was  laid  open  to  the 
Seljouk  Turks.  In  1071  A.  D.  the  whole  of  Asia  Minor 
lay  at  the  mercy  of  the  Seljouks.  At  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century  Timour  the  Tartar  devastated  the 
whole  of  Armenia.  In  1605  Shah  Abbas,  of  Persia, 
transplanted  twelve  thousand  Armenian  families  to 
Ispahan. 

The  history  of  the  Armenian  church  dates  back  to  the 
commencement  of  the  third  century.  As  early  as  the  time 
of  Tertullian,  who  lived  about  201  A.  D.,  there  were 
flourishing  communities  of  Christians  in  Armenia,  who, 
towards  the  close  of  the  century,  endured  much  persecu- 
tion from  the  Persian  fire-worshippers.  But  in  302 
Gregory  Loosavoritch,  i.  e.,  "The  Enlightener,"  became 
the  apostle  of  the  Armenians,  and  converted  the  whole 
nation.  But  before  this  time  Christianity  had  largely 
degenerated.  The  simple  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  a 
purely  spiritual  worship  had  given  place  to  the  practice 
of  external  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  to  discussions  about 
the  refinements  of  theological  speculation.  Gregory  him- 
self partook  largely  of  the  monastic  spirit  of  his  time, 
and  it  was  more  than  one  hundred  years  after  this  before 
Mesrob  invented  their  alphabet,  and,  with  Isaac,  his 
teacher,  translated  the  Scriptures  into  their  language, 
and  this  ancient  version  still  exists,  standing  very  high 
in  the  esteem  of  all  scholars. 

But  three-score  years  ago  the  Armenian  people  gen- 


94  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

erallj  were  unable  to  read  this  translation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Accordingly,  there  prevailed  an  almost  universal 
ignorance  of  the  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel.  The 
evangelical  doctrine  of  faith  was  unknown.  Faith  was 
with  them  a  receiving  of  whatever  the  church  teaches.  Of 
justifying  faith  they  had  hardly  even  heard.  They  were 
taught  to  confess  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  they  knew  little  of  the  sanctifying  power  and  grace  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  ''What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  was  to 
them  an  unnecessary  question,  since  all  baptized  persons 
are  saved  already.  And  so  their  whole  knowledge  of 
Christ  was  to  learn  when  and  how  to  make  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  when  and  how  to  fast,  what  church  feast  days  to 
observe,  how  often  to  confess,  and  when  to  receive  the  con- 
secrated wafer  from  the  priest's  hands. 

The  Armenians  have  a  regular  hierarchy,  consisting 
of  nine  distinct  orders,  its  head  being  the  Catholicos  of 
Etchmiadzin  in  the  Caucasus.  The  business  of  the  priest- 
hood is  not  to  instruct  the  people,  but,  to  a  large  degree, 
to  perform  certain  ceremonies,  which  had,  however,  in- 
herently a  power  to  save  the  soul.  The  original  idea  of 
the  Christian  ministry  is  totally  lost.  Priesthood  has 
taken  its  place ;  sacrificing  and  sanctifying  have  driven 
out  preaching.  Well-nigh  absolute  are  the  powers  of  this 
priesthood.  Baptism  is  essential  to  salvation,  and  yet 
baptism  belongs  to  the  priest.  He  transubstantiates  the 
wafer  into  the  body,  soul  and  divinity  of  Christ.  The 
people  must  both  eat  and  worship  this  wafer ;  and  so  an- 
other essential  to  salvation  is  also  in  the  priest's  hands. 
Confession  to  the  priest  is  another  essential.  Thus  they 
keep  the  conscience  of  the  people.  From  time  to  time 
they  probe  the  wounds  made  by  their  sins  and  must  re- 
main masters  of  all  their  secrets.  They  also  pronounce 
the  pardon  of  the  sinner.  Finally,  they  hold  the  terrific 
power  of  excommunication.  Under  this  sentence  a  man 
is  not  spoken  to  by  any  one,  none  buy  at  his  shop,  l^one 
dare  sell  or  give  him  food.  His  spirit,  when  he  dies,  is 
shut  out  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  his  l)ody  is 
denied  Christian  burial,  i^ay,  more,  it  never  consumes 
in  any  grave,  but  is  possessed  of  an  evil  spirit,  which 
causes  the  accursed  excommunicant  to  wander  about  at 
night  and  allows  him  no  rest. 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  95 

The  Catholicos  at  Etchmiadzin  is,  as  I  have  said,  the 
ecclesiastical  head  of  all  the  Armenians.  But  the  Arme- 
nian subjects  of  the  Sultan  are  represented  at  his  court 
bj  an  officer  called  the  Armenian  Patriarch.  This  is  al- 
ways a  bishop,  who  pays  a  large  sum  into  the  Sultan's 
treasury  for  his  official  position  and  political  and  ecclesi- 
astical power.  He  sells  bishoprics  to  reimburse  himself 
with  a  large  profit.  Bishops  must  sell  priesthoods  to  re- 
imburse th^iselves  with  a  profit,  and  the  priests  must 
reimburse  themselves  by  charges  on  the  people  for  their 
priestly  functions.  Great  is  the  power  of  the  Armenian 
ecclesiastics.  But  perhaps  the  real  lords  paramount 
among  these  people  are  the  rich  Armenians  of  Constanti- 
nople, who  are  the  bankers  of  the  Sultan  and  all  his 
pashas,  and  therefore  able  to  make  their  power  felt 
through  all  the  empire. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  Armenian  people  and  of 
their  ecclesiastical  and  political  affairs  sixty  or  seventy 
years  ago.  The  reader  who  desires  to  know  what  progress 
has  been  made  amongst  them  during  this  period,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  from  the  labors  of  American  missionaries 
and  other  good  influences,  may  turn  to  Appendix  A  of  this 
volume,  where  is  presented  a  trustworthy,  yet  remarkable, 
statement. 

In  the  year  1894  the  Turkish  Sultan  Abdul  Hamid  per- 
petrated a  massacre  of  the  Sassoun  villages  of  Armenians 
below  the  city  of  Moosh,  in  ancient  Armenia,  at  which 
the  civilized  world  was  made  to  stand  aghast.  That  was 
one  of  a  series  of  such  barbarous  acts  of  cruelty  and  op- 
pression towards  a  subject  race  as  history  has  seldom 
recorded.  In  Appendix  B  of  this  volume  the  reader  will 
find  some  account  of  these  atrocities. 

Considered  as  men,  the  Armenians  are  a  sober,  temper- 
ate, thoughtful,  industrious,  patient,  persevering  race. 
Of  a  genius  decidedly  commercial  and  manifesting  every- 
where a  growing  spirit  of  patriotism,  they  bear  a  stronger 
resemblance  to  the  Anglo-Saxons  than  any  other  Oriental 
people.  They  are  not  void  of  courage,  and  have  well 
learned  fortitude  in  their  long  school  of  suffering.  They 
have  little  taste  for  either  music  or  poetry.  They  are  not 
so  light-minded,  imaginative  or  versatile  as  the  Greek; 


96  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

less  dull  and  sluggish  than  the  Turks ;  less  degraded  and 
wretched  than  the  remnant  of  Israel,  that  other  peeled 
and  downtrodden  people.  Like  the  Jews,  they  are  also  a 
scattered  race.  Very  numerous  in  ancient  times,  the 
desolating  wars  of  long  ages  in  the  past  and  the  cruel 
massacres  they  have  been  suffering  in  recent  times  have 
greatly  reduced  their  numbers,  so  that  their  population 
cannot  now  exceed  four  million.  It  is  computed  that 
2,500,000  are  under  the  Sultan,  1,200,000  in  Kussia, 
150,000  in  Persia.  Westward  they  have  proceeded  to 
Trieste,  Venice,  Vienna  and  Amsterdam,  and  probably 
there  are  not  less  than  seven  thousand  in  jSTew  York.  !N"u- 
merous  in  Constantinople,  and  also  all  through  Asia 
Minor,  especially  in  its  central  portion,  they  are  also  to 
be  found  in  Syria,  and,  in  fact,  they  are  dispersed 
throughout  the  continent  of  Asia  from  Constantinople  to 
Calcutta,  and  as  far  eastward  as  Batavia,  in  Java.  It  is 
this  fact  of  their  wide  dispersion  that  constitutes  the  im- 
portance of  the  Armenians  as  a  field  for  evangelical  Chris- 
tian labor.  The  gospel  in  its  purity  and  power  accepted 
by  this  race,  scattered  among  so  many  nations,  would 
constitute  a  leaven  that  should  strongly  aid  in  leavening 
all  Asia. 

Having  thus  elaborately  answered  the  question,  Wlio 
are  the  Armenians  ?  I  proceed  to  speak  of  Messrs.  Goodell 
and  Dwight,  my  predecessors  in  the  Armenian  work. 
They  were  stationed  at  Constantinople,  and  their  work 
was  amongst  the  many  thousands  of  Armenians  in  that 
great  city.  Before  their  arrival,  there  had  begun  to  be 
manifested  in  Constantinople  a  spirit  of  earnest,  religious 
inquiry  amongst  some  young  men  of  the  Armenian  people. 
The  Rev.  William  Goodell,  stationed  at  Constantinople 
before  Mr.  Dwight  came,  had  a  more  general  commission, 
but  could  communicate  with  the  Armenians  through  his 
knowledge  of  Turkish,  with  which  all  the  Armenians  are 
familiar.  Two  young  men,  Hohannes  and  Senekerim 
by  name,  had  called  on  him,  desirous  to  learn  Protestant 
doctrines.  As  soon  as  Mr.  Dwight  came  and  was  able  to 
speak  the  Armenian  language  they  became  his  disciples, 
and  brought  him  others  of  like  spirit.  He  had  a  room  in 
a  khan,  in  one  of  the  bazaars,  and  usually  spent  his  days 


LIFE  AM0:N'G  the  AEMEIS'IANS.  97 

there  conversing  with  all  who  came  with  their  inquiries 
to  hear  the  gospel  from  him. 

My  first  business  was  to  learn  the  Armenian  language, 
and  mv  wife  and  I  began  the  study  of  it  together  under 
the  instruction  of  a  young  Armenian  of  Smyrna,  who 
proved  an  incompetent  teacher,  and  I  soon  obtained  a 
really  efficient  instructor.  He  was  a  character.  He  had 
lived  all  over  the  Eastern  world,  and  knew  his  own  lan- 
guage well,  besides  some  others.  He  gloried  in  the  title 
of  "Yussef  Eifendo,"  that  is,  "Joseph  my  lord."  He 
gave  us  a  ffood  start  in  the  language,  had  a  good  head  on 
his  shoulders,  and  keen,  bright  eyes,  but  his  person  was 
very  disagreeable,  it  was  the  abode  of  no  less  than  three 
different  kinds  of  inhabitants.  My  wife  had  to  be  very 
careful,  every  time  he  took  his  departure,  to  sweep  all 
around  the  hard  bottom  chair  on  which  he  sat,  as  well  as 
the  chair  itself.  After  awhile  Mr.  Dwight  sent  to  me 
Baron  Barkis,  that  is,  Mr.  Sarkis,  one  of  the  evangelical 
Armenians,  who  had  begun  to  multiply  around  him. 
This  young  man  was  a  gentleman  and  a  scholar,  and  also, 
we  had  good  reason  to  believe,  a  truly  enlightened  Chris- 
tian. He  lived  in  my  family,  and  he  taught  me  Arme- 
nian while  I  taught  him  English.  We  soon  began  the 
work  of  translating,  in  which  we  continued  to  labor 
together  until,  after  several  years,  I  saw  him  pass  over 
Jordan,  a  bright  and  joyous  believer.  He  died  of  con- 
sumption. His  physician,  of  English  descent,  but  born 
in  Turkey,  very  skillful  and  eminent  in  his  j^rofession, 
practised  the  Oriental  habit  of  cheering  up  the  very  sick 
with  false  hopes.  Contrary  to  the  doctor's  wishes  and 
prophecies  of  evil,  I  plainly  told  Sarkis  what  was  his  true 
condition,  as  the  doctor  had  made  it  known  to  me.  The 
next  time  I  met  him,  his  report  of  the  patient  was  de- 
cidedly favorable.  "Dr.  Wood,"  said  I,  "you  told  me  it 
would  be  fatal  to  Sarkis  if  I  should  plainly  inform  him 
that  his  days  were  numbered,  and  now  you  confess  to  me 
yourself  that  he  is  better."  Dear  Armenian  brother,  the 
doctor's  kindly,  but  untrue,  assurances  were  almost  daily 
contradicted  by  his  own  experiences,  and  so  he  was  kept 
painfully  moving  up  and  down  on  a  sliding  scale  of  the 
doctor's  own  invention.     The  correct  information,  which 


98  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

I  communicated  very  gently,  but  very  plainly,  brought 
his  soul  into  a  condition  of  steadfast,  confident,  hopeful 
quietude.  He  had  no  fear  of  death.  Many  were  the 
pleasant  talks  we  had  together  about  our  future  home  in 
the  Father's  house  on  high.  Among  the  books  we  had 
translated  together  into  his  o^ai  language  was  the  Pil- 
grim s  Progress.  How  his  countenance  did  light  up  when 
I  said  to  him,  "Sarkis,  you  are  going  to  meet  old  John 
Bunyan !"  So,  when  I  reminded  him  that  he  would  see 
Paul  and  Peter  and  John,  and,  above  all,  that  he  would 
meet,  face  to  face,  his  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the 
dying  believer's  eyes  plainly  expressed  the  joy  that  filled 
his  soul. 

My  friend  Sarkis  Hohanissean,  that  is,  the  son  of 
John,  was  such  an  Armenian  scholar  as  was  quite  rare 
amongst  his  nation  in  Constantinople.  He  became  also 
a  thorough  English  scholar.  I  could  set  hardly  anything 
in  our  own  tongue  before  him  of  a  construction  too  diffi- 
cult for  him  to  transfer,  in  plain  and  simple  words,  to 
his  own  language.  His  only  fault  as  a  translator  for  the 
Armenians  was  a  tendency  to  the  use  of  a  somewhat  too 
scholarly  style.  The  popular  language  of  the  Armenians 
was  very  much  corrupted  by  being  mixed  with  Turkish 
words,  and  these  Sarkis,  like  every  other  intelligent 
Armenian,  abhorred.  They  were  so  many  badges  of  his 
people's  ignorance  and  servitude  to  the  Moslem.  That 
the  vocabulary  of  the  modern  Armenian  should  widen,  as 
well  as  become  j^urified,  if  education  was  to  make  any 
progress  amongst  the  people,  was  just  such  a  necessity  as 
had  been  felt  amongst  the  Greeks,  when  their  modern 
language,  narrowed  down  to  slender  limits  by  centuries  of 
barbaric  ignorance,  had  begun  to  open  and  spread  itself  in 
the  expression  of  knowledge  and  thoughts  and  ideas  long 
buried  amongst  them.  It  has  not  required  quite  a  century 
to  bring  back  modern  Greek,  among  the  educated  of  that 
nation,  to  full  equality,  perhaps,  with  the  language  of 
their  forefathers,  when  Greece  was  "in  its  glory's  prime." 
The  same  prospect  lay  before  the  Armenian  people. 
Their  language  must  have  words  dug  out  from  the  disuse 
of  centuries  under  whose  ruins  they  were  lying  buried, 
because  they  had  need  of  those  words  to  express  the  new 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  99 

ideas  they  were  beginning  to  entertain.  Sarkis  knew 
this,  so  did  all  the  few  intelligent  scholars  that  remained 
amongst  them.  So  did  the  Armenian  missionaries,  and 
therefore  we  were  tolerant,  of  some  degree,  of  that  eleva- 
tion of  his  style,  which  the  scholarly  taste  of  Sarkis  could 
not  help  indulging. 

But,  as  our  work  advanced,  I  found  it  necessary  to  ob- 
tain another  translator  from  Constantinople.  His  name 
was  Baron  Arisdages.  But  his  surname  also  my  memory 
cannot  recall.  He,  too,  was  a  very  fine  Armenian  scholar, 
not  in  all  respects,  however,  equal  to  Sarkis.  He  some- 
what lacked  the  finished  culture  of  his  comrade,  though 
he  was  very  competent.  With  Baron  Arisdages  I  began 
the  work  of  translating,  first,  the  ancient  Armenian  New 
Testament  into  the  modern  language.  The  Armenians  of 
Asia  Minor  had  never  seen  the  New  Testament  in  a  lan- 
guage they  could  well  understand,  except  that  a  few 
copies  had  found  their  way  amongst  them  of  a  translation 
that  was  made  in  the  East  Indies  under  Baptist  mission- 
ary auspices  into  the  modern  Armenian  dialect,  as  spoken 
in  that  region,  differing  considerably  from  the  form  of 
dialect  used  further  west. 

The  ancient  Armenian  New  Testament  was  translated 
A.  D.  410-431.  Its  reputation,  amongst  the  ancient  ver- 
sions, stands  very  high,  being  second  only  to  the  old 
Peshito,  or  Syriac,  version.  Its  originator  seems  to  have 
been  the  Patriarch  Isaac,  but  the  chief  executor  of  the 
work  was  that  eminent  scholar,  Mesrob,  and  two  assist- 
ants, whom  he  sent  to  Egypt  to  acquire  thorough  Greek 
scholarship.  I  can  testify  from  my  owm  knowledge  of  the 
version  that  it  has  one  remarkable  feature  of  similarity 
to  our  received  Greek  text,  namely,  the  order  in  which 
every  word  occurs.  I  was  often  led  to  remark  how  com- 
pletely the  Greek  idiom  was  followed  in  its  collocation  of 
words.  Our  translation  from  this  ancient  version  into 
fnodern '  Armenian  was  made  by  my  helpers,  Sarkis  and 
Arisdages.  As  they  proceeded,  I  was  reading  our  Greek 
text,  and  occasionally  appending  a  note,  where  the  old 
Armenian  seemed  to  differ  from  the  Greek.  This  trans- 
lation, after  many  years,  was  revised,  and,  no  doubt,  im- 
proved, by  my  eminent  colleague,  the  Rev.  Elias  Riggs, 


7 


i^ 


I 


100  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

aided  bv  the  best  native  scholarship.  Some  twenty-five 
years  ago  Dr.  Cyrus  Hamlin,  visiting  me  at  Columbia 
Seminary,  said  that  there  had  then  been  as  many  as  three 
hundred  thousand  copies  of  this  modern  Armenian  New 
Testament  circulated  among  the  Armenians  all  over  the 
continent  of  Asia.  The  Armenian  people,  like  the  Jew^s, 
are  a  scattered  race,  from  Constantinople  to  Calcutta. 
They  are  to  be  found  all  over  the  greater  Asia,  including 
Persia,  Tartary  and  India,  in  little  groups  of  here  a  few 
families,  and  there  a  few  more.  The  whole  Armenian 
population  cannot  be  much  more  than  four  millions,  but, 
permeating,  as  they  do,  the  whole  Asiatic  population,  if 
they  can  once  be  evangelized,  the  gospel  leaven  will  leaven 
the  whole  mass.  It  is  this  that  constitutes  the  supreme 
importance  of  Armenian  missions. 

Upon  the  death  of  Sarkis,  who  had  been  my  helper  in 
conducting  a  monthly  magazine  of  useful  knowledge, 
largely  evangelical,  and  in  translating  various  other  pub- 
lications, such  as  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  and 
various  religious  tracts,  relating  to  gospel  doctrine, 
adapted  to  popular  reading,  I  had  been  obliged  to  get  a 
third  translator  from  Constantinople.  His  name  was 
Muggerdich  Tomasean,  that  is,  ''Baptist,  the  son  of 
Thomas."  Arisdages  did  not  live  in  my  family,  for  some 
reason  which  I  cannot  recall,  though  he  was  a  stranger  in 
Smyrna,  and  had  no  family.  But  Baptist,  the  son  of 
Thomas,  had  a  room  at  my  house  and  ate  at  my  table.  He 
was  a  good  Armenian  scholar,  and  learned  the  English 
language  speedily,  but  he  had  the  literary  acquirements 
of  neither  Sarkis  nor  Arisdages.  His  style  of  writing 
in  Armenian  was  better  suited  to  the  popular  apprehen- 
sion. He  was  an  earnest  Christian  believer,  and  had  a 
burning  zeal  for  the  religious  enlightenment  of  his  peo- 
ple. With  his  help  we  published,  amongst  other  things 
of  the  kind,  a  translation  of  a  simple  evangelical  cate- 
chism, which  Dr.  C.  C.  Jones  had  published,  and  used 
very  profitably  amongst  the  negroes  of  Liberty  county, 
\  Ga.  Baptist  Tomasean  had  no  sooner  seen  this  book,  and 
learned  to  read  a  few  pages  of  it,  than  he  became  very 
urgent  for  its  preparation  to  be  used  amongst  his  people. 
We  did  not  translate  it  literally,  but  largely,  as  Dr.  Jones 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  101 

had  written  it.  ^Ye  made  it  the  basis  of  a  popular  cate-  -^ 
chism  of  Scripture  doctrine.  It  was  a  great  success.  It/ 
was  exceedingly  popular  among  the  Armenian  brethren,  s- 
and  many  copies  of  it  were  called  for,  and,  I  feel  sure,  ' 
were  very  useful.  It  proved  to  be  exactly  adapted  to  the  • 
existing  condition  of  religious  ignorance  amongst  even 
intelligent  Armenians. 

(N.  B.)  Since  I  wrote  these  words  I  have  found, 
amongst  my  old  letters,  one  from  Dr.  Riggs,  dated  Con- 
stantinople, September  29,  1860,  from  which  I  make  an 
extract,  which  has  a  peculiar  significance  at  the  present 
date,  ]^ovember  13,  1896,  when  Turkish  and  Kurdish 
atrocities  are  arresting  the  eye  of  the  civilized  world : 
"We  trust  that  the  reformation,  in  which  we  have  been 
permitted  to  bear  a  part,  is  preparing  the  country  gradu- 
ally for  the  political  changes  which  imay  be  in  store  for  it. 
No  civil  government  can  make  a  people  happy  without  the 
fear  of  God,  and  no  misgovernment  can  make  them  en- 
tirely wretched  where  that  blessed  element  exists.  When 
fifteen  hundred  or  sixteen  hundred  assemble  (as  they  do) 
weekly  in  the  Sabbath-schools  of  both  Aintab  and  Mar  ash, 
to  study  the  Bible  and  Jones'  Catechism,  it  is  impossible 
that  the  communities  around  them  should  remain  sta- 
tionary. There  is  essential  progress,  though  it  is  far 
from  being  all  that  we  could  desire." 

This  reference  to  work,  in  the  execution  of  which, 
fourteen  years  previously,  I  had  borne  a  part,  was  exceed- 
ingly cheering  to  me.  Dr.  Riggs'  statement  makes  it 
evident  that  thirty-six  years  ago  there  were  in  Marash 
and  Aintab,  cities  far  in  the  interior  of  Asia  Minor, 
fifteen  hundred  or  sixteen  hundred  of  the  population  of  , 
each  city,  gathering  together  every  Lord's  day  to  study 
the  Scriptures  and  Jones'  Catechism,  originally  prepared  ■  1%^ 
for  the  slaves  of  Liberty  county.  How  much  these  more 
than  three  thousand  believers  must,  with  the  blessing  of,  ■ 
God,  have  increased  during  these  thirty-six  years,  and 
what  a  great  work  of  preparation  must  have  been  thus 
effected  for  a  patient  endurance  of  the  fearful  calamities, 
which  the  Sultan's  misrule  and  the  indifference  of 
European  governments,  were  to  bring  upon  the  poor  Ar- 
menians ! 


u^ 


102  MY  LIFE  A^STD  TIMES. 

The  spirit  of  religious  inquiry  was  rapidly  spreading, 
especially  amongst  the  Constantinople  Armenians.  Some 
of  the  better  educated  Armenians,  who  were  opposed  to 
the  pure  truths  of  the  gospel  which  we  were  disseminat- 
ing, began  a  counter  work  of  publication  for  their  people. 
They  issued  attacks  upon  our  teachings  in  the  form  of  re- 
ligious f)amphlets,  and  the  brethren  in  Constantinople 
prepared  replies,  sometimes  translated  in  Constantinople, 
but  more  frequently  by  us  at  Smyrna.  The  printing  was 
done  at  our  press.  Thus  I  came  into  the  necessary  em- 
ployment of  another  helper,  one  Muggerdich  Papasean, 
that  is,  "Baptist,  the  son  of  Papas,"  a  young  man  of 
Smyrna,  educated  in  their  language  by  his  older  brother, 
Andreas  Varjabed,  the  head  professor,  as  his  title  signi- 
fies, of  the  Armenian  College  in  Smyrna.  Andreas  Var- 
jabed was  himself  a  thoroughly  educated  Armenian 
scholar.  His  young  brother.  Baptist,  soon  became  a  truly 
enlightened  Christian  believer,  and  a  very  earnest  co- 
worker in  spreading  the  truth  throughout  his  nation. 
Shortly  after  my  return  to  America  from  Smyrna,  this 
young  man  died  of  consumption.  The  other  Baptist, 
Muggerdich  Tomasean,  had  previously  departed  this  life, 
and  the  decease  of  both,  I  do  not  doubt,  was  their  entrance 
into  a  higher  sphere  of  service  for  their  Lord. 

It  had  begun  to  be  manifest  that,  through  the  blessing 
of  God,  there  was  commencing  among  the  Armenians, 
though,  of  course,  on  a  very  small  scale,  a  work  very 
V  j  much  like  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
^  There  were  the  same  antecedent  conditions ;  a  nation 
that  had  been  nominally  Christian  for  long  ages,  but  who 
were  perhaps  totally  ignorant  of  gospel  truth ;  they  had 
no  legible  Scriptures — they  were  generally  as  incapable 
of  reading  the  word  of  God  in  their  own  ancient  language 
as  they  were  of  reading  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  Scriptures ; 
the  Christianity  they  knew  was  a  religion  of  mere  cere- 
monies ;  it  was,  in  fact,  a  religion  of  idolatry,  for,  while 
eschewing  the  worship  of  graven  images,  they  l)owed 
do\vn  and  worshipped  before  pictured  likenesses ;  it  was 
in  simple  truth  Mariolatry,  for  their  trust  was  in  the 
Virgin,  and  Christ  was  altogether  hidden  behind  his 
mother;   the  Armenian  priesthood  closely  resembled  that 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  103 

of  the  Koman  Church  when  Luther  arose;    and,  finally, 
there  had  come  to  prevail  the  same  spirit  of  religious  in- 
quiry, and  of  dissatisfaction  with  their  church.      This 
was  especially  true  at  Constantinople,  but  it  seemed  to 
prevail,   in  some  degree,   very  widely.      I  should  have 
added  that  the  Armenian  patriarch,  bishops  and  priests 
had  begun  to  manifest  the  same  persecuting  spirit  which 
insjiired  the  Romish  clergy  three  centuries  ago.     Accord- 
ingly, it  was  felt  to  be  desirable  that  the  Armenian  priest- 
hood, and  also  the  Armenian  inquirers,  should  be  made 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation. 
The  man  whom  I  named,  in  a  previous  page,  as  head  of 
the  Armenian  Academy,  or  College,  at  Smyrna,  that  is, 
Professor  Andrew  Papasean,  was  a  good  French  scholar, 
and  I  also  was  familiar  with  that  language.     Accord-  '^ 
ingly,  we  began  the  translation  of  D'Aubigne's  History  of  c 
the  Reformation.     I  took  a  copy  of  the  edition  put  forth 
at  Paris  and  Geneva  in  1838,  and  carefully  abridged  it  ^ 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  shorten  much  the  history  without 
much  injury  to  its  value.     Professor  Andrew  translated 
the  abridgment  into  Armenian,  and  then,  together,  we 
carefully  went  over  the  Armenian  and  French,  consider- 
ing both  the  abridging  and  the  translating  work.     It  con- 
stituted two  respectable  volumes  in  the  modern  Armenian 
language.     This  was  almost  the  last  work  of  my  twelve 
years  of  labor  among  this  peoj^le,  for  shortly  after  this 
was  finished,  I  had  to  return  home  to  the  United  States. 
Dr.  Hamlin,  when  visiting  me  at  Columbia  Seminary,  as 
mentioned  before,  said  that  the  work  had  proved  accepta- 
ble and  useful. 

My  chief  business,  as  missionary  to  the  Armenians, 
being  the  management  of  the  press  in  modern  Armenian, 
as  has  already  been  made  to  appear,  I  was  consequently 
very  much  confined  to  my  desk,  revising  the  work  of  my 
translators,  and  reading  proof  sheets,  as  they  came  from 
the  printing  office.  Accordingly,  I  had  little  time  to  visit 
amongst  the  Armenians  of  Smyrna.  They  were  indeed 
but  a  few  thousands,  and  whenever  any  man  of  their 
nation  ventured  to  visit  me,  he  was  immediately  marked. 
Nevertheless,  as  soon  as  I  was  able  to  speak  the  language 
fluently,  I  always  attempted  a   Sunday  service  in  Ar- 


104  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

menian.  Usuallv  I  had  one  or  two  Armenians,  besides 
mj  three  or  four  translators,  to  hear  me  expound  the 
Scriptures.  Occasionally  I  would  have  several  strangers. 
Quite  seldom  did  my  little  congregation  amount  to  eight 
or  ten,  but  one  Sunday  I  actually  had  a  large  congrega- 
tion which  numbered  sixteen ! 

We  always  had  preaching  in  English  at  the  Dutch 
Chapel,  where  a  considerable  congregation  of  the  English, 
French  Protestant,  and  Dutch  colony  would  assemble. 
The  summer  time  I  usually  moved  my  family  out  of  the 
city  four  miles  to  the  little  Turkish  village  of  Boujah, 
where  a  number  of  Europeans  and  Americans  congre- 
gated, and  to  them  I  constantly  preached  on  the  Lord's 
day,  and  also  of  a  Wednesdav  evening.  Some  summers 
we  went  to  Bournabat,  which  was  seven  miles  from  the 
city  near  the  gulf  shore.  Five  miles  of  the  seven  we  had 
to  be  rowed  in  a  little  Greek  caique;  the  other  two  we 
rode  on  donkeys.  From  Boujah  I  would  ride  in  to  my 
daily  work  on  horseback,  or  perhaps  on  the  back  of  a  don- 
key. It  was  on  donkeys  that  our  ladies  usually  rode  with 
the  owner  of  the  animal  running  by  her  side  with  one 
hand  on  the  bridle,  and  the  other  hand  behind  the  cum- 
brous big  Turkish  saddle,  holding  a  sharp  goad,  with 
several  rings  attached  to  the  goad.  Sometimes  he  would 
stimulate  the  donkey  with  the  goad,  though  frequently  it 
was  enough  just  to  jingle  his  rings.  Those  patient  little 
beasts  of  burden  were  very  quick  in  their  motions,  and 
would  whirl  round  very  suddenly,  thus  unseating  even  a 
male  rider.  The  native  women  always  rode  astride ; 
but  our  ladies,  having  only  the  Turkish  saddle  to  sit  on, 
found  it  necessary  to  have  the  driver  at  their  side  helping 
them  to  keep  on. 

We  had  arrived  in  Smyrna  early  in  October,  1834.  On 
the  first  day  of  the  following  June  our  first  child  was 
born.  We  named  him  after  my  father.  He  died  on  the 
15th  day  of  April,  1837.  Our  second  son  was  born  on 
the  2d  of  June,  1836,  and  we  named  him  after  two  of  my 
brothers.  He  died  on  the  4th  of  June,  1837.  Thus  in 
seven  weeks  both  were  taken,  and  we  were  left  childless. 
These  dispensations  we  felt  to  be  very  severe,  but  they 
did  certainly  afterwards  yield  to  us  the  peaceable  fruits 


LIFE  AMOI^G  THE  ARMENIANS.  105 

of  righteousness.  As  to  myself,  religion  became  a  new 
experience  to  me,  awakening  within  me  far  deeper  and 
tenderer  emotions  than  it  ever  before  produced.  As  at 
Princeton  Seminary,  I  received,  as  it  were,  a  new  con- 
version, so  was  it  here  and  now.  When  my  first-born  died 
I  was  overwhelmed  with  grief,  but  my  aged  colleague, 
the  Rev.  Daniel  Temple,  perceiving  my  distress,  told  me 
I  should  probably  live  to  consider  this  the  greatest  bless- 
ing of  my  life.  His  words  were  fulfilled.  AVhen  the 
second  boy  died  we  were  totally  unprepared  for  it.  I 
was  sitting  in  the  basement  room  of  our  little  Turkish 
cottage  at  Boujah,  on  Saturday,  June  3d,  writing  a  ser- 
mon on  the  text  "God  is  Love,"  which  I  was  to  preach 
next  day  to  the  little  English  and  American  congregation. 
I  little  thought  that  in  the  "Love  of  God"  we  were  about 
to  experience  another  painful  bereavement.  But,  in  his 
good  and  wise  providence,  it  was  so  ordered.  At  mid- 
night our  only  remaining  child  was  taken  from  us.  .  .  . 
I  added  a  little  to  my  sermon,  and  on  Sunday  morning 
I  was  enabled  to  preach  it.  There  was  no  Protestant 
church  building  then  at  Boujah,  but  a  suitable  lot  had 
been  purchased,  and  a  chapel  was  about  to  be  erected.  In 
that  lot  we  buried  our  infants  in  one  grave  alongside  of 
the  one  where  we  had  shortly  before  assisted  in  depositing 
the  remains  of  the  wife  of  the  Rev.  Eli  Smith,  missionary 
to  Beirut.  No  Christian  church  building  can  be  built  in 
Turkey  without  a  special  permit  from  the  Sultan  at  Con- 
stantinople. Every  effort  to  obtain  this  permission  failed 
in  this  case.  After  a  delay  of  some  months,  the  Protes- 
tants purchased  a  dwelling  house  that  had  lately  been 
erected,  which,  with  some  inside  alterations,  would  con- 
stitute a  very  commodious  chapel.  To  this  the  Turks 
would  make  no  objection.  That  lot  being  enclosed,  and 
graves  being  dug  there  for  our  purposes,  Mr.  Smith  and  I 
repaired  at  midnight,  took  up  our  dead,  and  they  were 
buried  in  their  new  resting-places.  Subsequently,  I  had 
a  tombstone  put  over  my  children,  with  our  names  and 
theirs    inscribed,  and    also    their    ages,   and    then    this 

epitaph —  -. 

"  Asleep  in  Jesus  !  ) 

To  wake  with  all  that  glorious  band,  \» 

The  martyrs  of  this  solemn  land."  A^ 


106  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

I  took  this  couplet  of  lines  from  a  very  sweet  poem 
which  Miss  Hamilton,  of  Scotland,  who  had  become 
greatly  attached  to  our  little  James  during  his  sickness, 
had  written  respecting  him.  It  was  published  in  Scot- 
land with  her  poems,  and  a  beautiful  copy  of  them  sent 
to  me,  but  Tecumseh  Sherman  burnt  it,  with  the  rest  of 
my  library  in  Columbia. 

Our  iirst-born  son,  James,  was  baptized  by  Rev.  Daniel 
Temple,  on  the  afternoon  of  a  T^ord's  day  in  the  Dutch 
Chapel  at  Smyrna,  1835, and  his  brother,  Robert  William, 
was  baptized  by  the  Rev.  Josiah  Brewer  on  Friday  even- 
ing, 1st  of  July,  1836.  Mrs.  Eli  Smith,  of  whom  I 
spoke  above,  had  spent  the  last  days  of  her  suffering  life 
with  us  in  our  little  Turkish  cottage.  She  was  a  Miss 
Landman,  of  Connecticut,  a  highly  gifted  lady;  had 
passed  some  years  of  her  life  in  Beirut,  Syria;  was  fa- 
tally ill  with  consumption,  and,  with  her  husband,  was 
on  her  way  home  to  die  there ;  on  the  way  from  Beirut 
to  Smyrna  they  were  cast  away,  the  vessel  was  wrecked, 
and  there  being  no  way  of  departure  from  the  desert  spot 
where  the  shipwreck  occurred,  Mrs.  Smith  had  to  lie  ex- 
posed on  the  beach  more  than  one  day  and  night.  Reach- 
ing Smyrna  at  last,  she  was  brought  from  the  city  to  us  at 
Boujah,  where  she  died,  in  the  same  little  chamber  where 
our  James  had  passed  away,  and  her  husband  being 
called  out  at  the  moment  for  some  reason,  it  was  my 
privilege  to  close  her  eyes  in  death.  This  is  no  unfair 
sample  of  missionary  life. 

There  were  two  somewhat  remarkable  features  in  the 
death  of  this  eminent  missionary  woman.  After  con- 
sciousness had  ceased  a  good  while,  her  dying  moans,  all 
at  once,  gave  way  to  what  seemed  to  be  the  march  of  a 
h^inn  tune  in  two  lines,  though,  of  course,  there  were  no 
articulate  words.  We  looked  at  one  another,  and  whis- 
pered, "She  is  singing."  "Yes,"  said  her  weeping  hus- 
band, "she  hears  the  heavenly  choirs,  and  is  trying  to  sing 
in  unison  with  what  she  hears."  This  certainly  was  quite 
impressive.  Then  it  was  a  somewhat  remarkable  assem- 
bly who  witnessed  this  scene.  Besides  the  Americans 
present,  there  were  several  Armenians,  one  or  two  Greeks, 
one  English  lady,  and  one  man  of  the  Druses  of  !Mt. 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  AKMENIANS.  107 

Lebanon — a  mongrel  Mohammedan  and  heathen  people. 
He  had  come  as  a  servant  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Smith. 

Our  third  child,  named  Sarah  Anne,  after  my  mother 
and  my  wife's  sister,  was  born  at  Smyrna,  Sej)tember  4, 
1837,  and  was  baptized  by  the  Rev.  Eli  Smith.  The  next 
summer,  my  father  and  mother,  with  my  sisters,  Susan 
and  Jane  Anne,  and  my  brother  William,  were  all  in  Eng- 
land, and  in  July  we  started  with  our  babe,  ten  months 
old,  and  Yanoula,  that  is,  Joanna,  a  Greek  girl,  her  nurse, 
to  go,  at  my  father's  expense,  and  meet  them  there.  I  had 
taken  the  precaution  weeks  beforehand  to  ride  out  seven 
miles  from  Smyrna  to  Sevtheekeoy,  a  little  Greek  village, 
to  get  the  consent  of  Yanoula' s  mother  for  her  to  go  with 
us.  She  had  been  the  nurse  of  our  first  two  boys,  as  well 
as  little  Sarah  Anne.  With  one  exception  she  was  the 
only  Greek  we  had  personally  known  who  never  would 
tell  a  lie.  We  were  greatly  attached  to  her,  of  course,  and 
so  she  was  to  us.  Her  old  mother  cheerfully  consented. 
Nevertheless,  on  the  day  of  our  embarkation,  as  a  measure 
of  needful  prudence,  I  took  my  family  as  early  as  possible 
on  board  the  French  steamer  on  which  we  were  to  sail. 
Leaving  them  there,  I  went  on  shore  to  wind  up  some 
little  matters  of  business,  and  amongst  them  to  see  the 
American  Consul,  Mr.  David  Offley,  and  get  my  pass- 
ports. I  found  quite  a  tumult  in  the  city.  The  Greek 
priest  at  Sevtheekeoy  had  heard  that  we  were  taking  Ya- 
noula to  England.  He  inferred  that  she  was  to  be  made 
an  English,  or  an  American,  or  a  Protestant  girl,  these 
three  terms  being  synonymous  with  him.  He  raised  a 
storm  about  the  old  woman's  ears,  brought  her  into 
Smyrna  to  take  the  girl  away  from  us.  Reaching  the 
city,  he  stirred  up  the  Smyrna  priesthood,  and  they 
stirred  up  quite  a  crowd  of  their  people,  so  there  was  a 
great  commotion.  Even  the  American  Consul,  partly  of 
Greek  blood  himself,  and  no  friend  to  us  missionaries, 
took  part  in  the  fuss,  and  remonstrated  with  me  against 
my  transporting  this  Greek  girl  to  America.  I  assured 
the  gentleman  that  I  was  not  going  to  America,  and  that 
the  girl  should  be  brought  back  safely  in  three  or  four 
months.  So  then  I  took  a  caique,  and  went  on  board  the 
ship.     I  found  that  Yanoula's  mother,  and  perhaps  her 


108  MY  LIFE  AjS^D  TIMES. 

priest,  but  certainly  a  number  of  her  excited  people,  had 
gone  out  to  the  French  vessel  to  bring  the  girl  back.  They 
wanted  to  go  on  board  for  her,  but  only  the  mother  was 
permitted  to  ascend.  Then  followed  a  scene.  The  old 
mother  interviewed  her  daughter,  commanding,  persuad- 
ing, beseeching  her  to  go  back  with  her.  To  all  this  Ya- 
noula  was  deaf.  Finally,  the  old  mother  solemnly  pro- 
nounced a  curse  on  her  daughter,  as  she  took  her  depar- 
ture. Yanoula  stood  firm  to  the  end,  all  that  she  said 
throughout  the  whole  affair  was,  ''You  told  the  chelehi 
and  the  kokona/'  that  is,  the  master  and  the  mistress,  "that 
I  might  go  with  them,  and  now  here  at  the  last  I  am  not 
going  to  disappoint  them." 

Such  is  the  power  which  the  priests  wield  over  the 
ignorant  people.  Yanoula  knew  very  well  that  her 
mother's  curse  was  not  denounced  sincerely — she  only 
spoke  it  from  fear  of  the  priest. 

Poor  little  Sarah  Anne  had  noj;  altogether  recovered 
from  her  attack  of  the  measles.  She  became  quite  sick  on 
the  voyage.  At  Hiat  period  all  passengers  from  the  Le- 
vant desiring  to  enter  Europe  must  perform  a  quarantine 
of  three  weeks  at  the  island  of  Malta.  Accordingly,  we 
were  shut  up  in  one  of  the  old  stone  forts  built  by  the 
Knights  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  viz.,  the  Castle  of  St. 
Angelo.  It  was  a  splendid  fortress,  kept  in  the  very  best 
order,  but  without  any  armament.  We  had  delightful 
apartments  all  built  of  solid  masonry.  We  were  fur- 
nished with  whatever  we  desired  from  a  restaurant  kept 
outside  of  the  fort,  sat  in  our  cool,  shady  room  during 
the  heat  of  every  day,  and  walked  at  our  pleasure  on  the 
ramparts  at  eventide.  Our  sole  companions  were  a  young 
English  gentleman,  named  Hardy,  and  his  friend,  whose 
name  I  forget.  Our  imprisonment  was  not  very  disagree- 
able, except  for  the  sickness  of  our  little  girl,  who  seemed, 
day  by  day,  to  grow  gradually  more  fec])lo. 

Having  obtained  what  they  call  pratique,  that  is,  our 
quarantine  being  over,  and  being  released  from  the  Castle 
St.  Angelo,  we  proceeded  on  our  way  to  Marseilles.  The 
baby  did  not  improve ;  nevertheless,  when  we  reached 
France,  we  judged  it  best  to  proceed.  We  got  as  far  as 
Avignon,  in  a  French  diligence.     There  I  was  able  to 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  109 

find  a  carriage  that  had  come  from  Paris,  and  was  to  be 
sent  back.  I  engaged  it  at  once,  and  we  then  set  out 
"travelling  post,"  that  is  to  say,  we  took  advantage  of 
the  French  system  of  Pastes,  obtaining  fresh  relays  of 
horses  continually.  In  this  way  we  travelled  night  and 
day,  and  made-  rapid  progress.  Passing  a  rope  from  one 
corner  of  the  carriage  above  our  heads,  to  the  opposite 
corner  diagonally  and  back  again,  and  putting  a  couple 
of  sticks,  a  foot  and  a  half  long  between  the  ropes,  and 
then  passing  a  folded  sheet  round  the  ropes  thus  separ- 
ated, we  constructed  a  pretty  comfortable  hammock  for 
the  sick  baby,  on  which  she  lay  quietly  just  as  long  as  the 
carriage  moved  on.  At  Lyons,  both  the  child  and  her 
mother  being  very  sick,  we  Avere  delayed  two  or  three 
days  at  the  Hotel  Provencial.  I  called  in  a  French  physi- 
cian, by  name  Pernolet.  He  was  a  Roman  Catholic.  Our 
case  as  Americans,  and  as  missionaries  coming  from 
Smyrna,  the  mother  and  the  babe  both  sick,  seemed  to 
interest  him  very  much.  I  managed  to  converse  with 
him  in  my  broken  French,  and  I  was  greatly  moved  by  all 
his  kindness  to  us.  Moving  on  at  length  from  Lyons,  we 
were  placed,  first,  in  a  small  steamer  crowded  with  pas- 
sengers, which  conveyed  us  to  a  larger  one,  on  board  of 
which  we  then  em])arked.  The  crowd,  as  soon  as  they 
embarked,  rushed  for  the  breakfast  table,  and  filled  it. 
We,  moving  slower,  had  to  wait  till  they  had  finished. 
Then  they  turned  to  see  us  sitting  there  with  our  sick  babe 
on  its  mother's  laj).  Evidently  their  commiseration  was 
excited.  It  was  not  long  before  a  French  priest  ap- 
proached me,  and,  supposing  the  child  to  be  dying,  asked 
me  if  I  would  like  him  to  baptize  it.  I  replied  that  I  was 
a  Protestant  minister  myself,  and  the  child  had  been  bap- 
tized. He  bowed  politely  and  retired.  I  felt  quite  sad, 
and  was  sitting  behind  my  wife,  with  my  hand  covering 
my  eyes,  when,  after  a  short  interval,  he  returned,  carry- 
ing oil,  or  perhaps  water,  in  a  little  cup  behind  his  back, 
and  then  unperceived  by  me,  as  he  passed  by  the  mother 
and  the  child,  he  just  made  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  its 
forehead,  and  moved  quickly  off.  My  poor  wife  was  very 
indignant,  but  I  told  her  he  meant  kindly,  believing,  as 
his  church  teaches,  that  unbaptized  children  are  all  lost 


110  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

forever,  that  our  babe  was  not  truly  baptized,  and  that 
bv  this  act  of  his,  this  stolen  baptism,  he  had  actually 
saved  the  baby's  soul ! 

After  awhile  I  made  the  acquaintance  of  a  gentleman 
and  his  wife  who  spoke  English.  They  proved  to  be 
Protestant  travelling  missionaries  employed  by  their 
brethren  to  go  about  amongst  the  Roman  Catholic  people, 
giving  them  instruction  in  the  true  faith.  We  had  a  good 
deal  of  conversation,  and  I  told  him  about  the  stolen  bap- 
tism. Subsequently,  the  zealous  priest  got  this  gentleman 
to  introduce  him  to  me,  and  after  a  few  common-place 
words,  he  politely  requested  my  name  and  address,  saying 
it  would  be  a  pleasant  souvenir  to  him.  Of  course,  I  gave 
it  to  him,  and  he  pencilled  it  on  his  little  memorandum 
book.  I  have  no  doubt  that  our  little  Sarah  Anne,  the 
child  of  a  Protestant  minister,  was  in  due  time  reported 
to  the  proper  authorities  as  having  been  properly  baptized 
by  him,  amongst  all  the  other  little  children  whose  salva- 
tion he  had  thus  been  the  means  of  securing. 

We  quit  the  steamer  in  the  afternoon  at  Chalons,  and 
pursued  our  sorrowful  journey  towards  Paris.  We 
passed  through  Autun,  and  when  we  drove  into  the  hotel 
yard  at  Auxerre,  I  was  greatly  astonished  and  much  de- 
lighted to  meet  there  my  venerable  father.  Hearing  that 
we  were  on  the  road  with  a  sick  child,  a  perfect  stranger 
in  France,  and  knowing  nothing  of  the  language,  he  had 
still,  in  his  fatherly  kindness,  ventured  to  set  out  to  meet 
us  far  in  the  interior.  At  the  very  commencement  of  his 
lonely  journey,  he  had  happened  to  sit  alongside  of  an  old 
Frenchman,  and  the  kind  old  lady  his  wife.  They  per- 
ceived he  was  a  stranger,  and  took  charge  of  him.  There 
were  frequent  changes  to  be  made  in  the  mode  of  the 
journey,  and  at  every  one  of  these  his  conductors,  with 
the  politeness  characteristic  of  the  French,  would  see  to 
it  that  he  got  a  good  place.  The  old  lady,  especially, 
would  beckon  to  him  with  her  hand,  saying  something  to 
him  in  French,  and  he,  following  her,  would  say,  "Oui, 
oui,"  which  was  all  the  French  he  knew,  and  then  all 
three  of  them  would  have  a  laugh  together. 

Our  chartered  carriage  was  in  need  of  some  slight  re- 
pairs at  Auxerre,  and  the  workman  made  rather  an  ex- 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIAISTS.  Ill 

tortionate  charge.  Xot  an  adept  in  speaking  French  my- 
self, I  was  hardly  able  to  deal  with  him  in  his  language. 
I  had  learned  in  Turkey  at  what  a  disadvantage  this  al- 
ways puts  a  disputant.  Whenever  a  Turkish  porter,  who 
had  carried  a  load  for  me  on  his  pack,  undertook  to  charge 
me  more  than  was  due,  I  always  began  to  use  the  English 
language  on  him,  and  he  was  generally  quite  discomfited 
at  once,  and  would  give  up  the  argument,  and  depart  with 
a  just  payment  in  his  hand.  I  was  inwardly  amused 
when  I  saw  my  father  try  this  plan  with  the  French  black- 
smith. Shaking  his  doubled-up  fist  at  the  man,  the  old 
gentleman,  considerably  roused  by  his  injustice,  broke 
out  thus,  "If  ever  I  catch  you  in  my  country,  I  will  do 
you  this  same  way."  Nevertheless,  he  paid  the  bill,  and 
we  departed.  Reaching  Paris,  he  took  us  to  the  Hotel 
Meurice  in  the  Rue  de  Rivoli.  From  Paris  we  went  to 
Havre,  and  took  steam  to  England,  and  then  by  rail  to 
Birmingham.  There  again,  after  some  weeks,  we  were 
left  childless,  September  9,  1838.  Our  little  one,  enclosed 
in  a  coffin  filled  with  gypsum,  and  then  placed  in  another 
box,  was  sent  across  the  Atlantic,  and  buried  in  my 
father's  family  plat  in  the  Second  church  grave-yard, 
Charleston.  We  all  went  down  to  Liverpool,  and  were 
lodged  with  our  friends,  John  Bones  and  lady,  at  the  Star 
and  Garter  Hotel.  My  brother  James,  having  just  ar- 
rived from  his  travels  in  Egypt,  my  father  took  him  and 
me  over  to  his  native  country.  We  went  to  Dublin,  and 
then  Belfast,  went  through  the  County  Antrim,  visited 
Dunean,  where  my  grandfather  lived  and  was  buried, 
also  Moneynick  and  Randallstown,  and  thence  to  the 
Giants'  Causeway,  and  after  that,  back  again  to  Tiver- 
pool. 

When  the  time  came  for  my  brother  William  to  leave 
the  party  and  return  home,  we  called  a  cab,  after  the  clock 
had  struck  seven  in  the  morning,  and  putting  his  trunk 
into  it,  my  brother  James  and  I  set  off  with  the  cab  for 
the  quay,  my  father  putting  a  shilling  into  my  hand  to 
pay  the  cabman.  He,  with  my  brother  William,  were  to 
walk  down  together,  having  to  call  somewhere  on  the  way. 
xVrrived  at  Scotland  yard  and  the  dock,  we  would  have 
sent  William's  trunk  on  board,  but  the  cabman  would  not 


112  MY  LIFE  AISTD  TIMES. 

give  it  up,  demanding  an  extra  shilling,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  called  before  seven.  I  quietly  said,  "Wait 
till  the  gentleman  who  engaged  you  comes  down,  and  then 
we'll  settle  it."  There  Avas  quite  a  crowd  of  spectators. 
When  the  others  got  do^vn,  I  told  my  father  what  the 
cabman  said,  and  that  he  wouldn't  give  up  the  trunk.  The 
Irish  blood  in  the  old  man  rose  at  once,  starting  forward 
through  the  crowd,  he  said,  "Where  is  the  fellow  ?"  My 
brother  James  saw  the  storm  arising,  and  felt  it  was  time 
for  him  to  interfere.  With  his  strong,  muscular  arms,  he 
laid  hold  on  poor,  little  Paddy,  and  sent  him  flying  some 
ten  feet  away  from  the  trunk.  The  hot  Irish  blood  cooled 
off  the  instant  James  laid  hold,  and  father  cried  out, 
"James,  let  the  man  alone."  I  stepped  out  of  the  crowd, 
and  beckoned  to  a  policeman  up  at  the  office,  who  came 
down  at  once,  and,  hearing  what  we  said,  took  the  cabman 
under  arrest  to  the  office,  where  he  said  we  could  find  him 
when  ready.  William  and  his  trunk  went  on  board,  and 
the  ship  departed.  The  policeman  named  an  hour  when 
a  magistrate  would  be  present,  and  we  could  have  satisfac- 
tion for  the  cabman's  misconduct.  My  father's  Irish 
heart  had  softened  as  soon  as  he  saw  the  big,  burly  Eng- 
lish policeman  leading  off  his  little  countryman  a  pris- 
oner, and  so  no  sooner  had  the  policeman  made  his  state- 
ment than  the  Irish  hand  found  its  way  to  a  pocket,  and, 
slipping  several  shillings  into  Paddy's  hand,  he  told  the 
policeman  he  would  enter  no  complaint,  and  the  cabman 
went  away  rejoicing. 

The  day  approached  when  the  Charleston  party  were 
to  set  sail.  It  had  been  settled  that  my  wife's  state  of 
health  required  that  she  should  accompany  them.  I  felt 
it  was  necessary  that  I  should  return  to  my  work  in 
Smyrna.  My  father  had  taken  a  great  fancy  to  our 
Greek  nurse,  and  urged  Yanoula  to  go  with  her  mistress 
to  Charleston.  Probably  she  would  have  been  willing,  but 
I  had  said  that  she  would  return  from  England.  It  was 
a  sorrowful  parting  for  my  wife  and  me.  They  sailed 
away,  and  I  set  out  alone  for  my  Eastern  home.  ISTo,  my 
brother  James  accompanied  me  as  far  as  Paris,  and  from 
thence  I  had  the  charge  of  good,  faithful  Yanoula,  all  the 
way  from  Paris  to  Marseilles  in  a  diligence,  and  thence 


LIFE  AMO^STG  THE  ARMENIANS.  113 

on  a  ten  days'  voyage  by  French  steamer  to  Smyrna. 
They  had  promised  me  at  the  diligence  office  that  we  had 
plenty  of  time  to  catch  the  next  steamer,  but  it  was  with 
no  little  consternation,  that,  on  reaching  the  highlands 
above  Marseilles,  I  could  see  the  French  steamer  setting 
out  on  her  voyage.  I  was  condemned  to  a  ten  days'  so- 
journ in  a  French  hotel  at  Marseilles,  with  this  young 
woman  on  my  hands.  I  found  that  she  needed  my  pro- 
tection constantly.  I  had  to  interfere  on  her  behalf  in 
the  hotel.  On  the  steamer,  likewise,  the  same  thing  oc- 
curred, she  being  in  the  second  cabin,  and  I  in  the  first. 
During  my  ten  days'  stay  at  the  hotel,  I  had  to  provide 
her  a  room  next  to  my  own,  and  also  to  have  my  food  fur- 
nished three  times  a  day  in  my  own  room,  with  one  table 
set  for  myself  and  another  for  her.  When  she  got  home  at 
Sevtheekeoy,  she  had  a  hard  time ;  she  was  never  to  be 
allowed  to  hire  to  an  American  or  English  family  again. 
I  never  saw  her  but  once  more,  but  she  carried  with  her  in 
her  separation  from  her  mistress  and  me  all  the  instruc- 
tions my  wife  had  given  her,  and  also  the  modern  Greek 
Testament  she  had  taught  her  to  read. 

After  some  fifteen  months,  the  separation  becoming  no 
longer  tolerable,  we  met  again  in  Liverpool  in  January 
or  February,  1840,  my  wife  bringing  with  her  Miss 
Maria  Shrewsbury,  and  our  third  little  son,  about  one 
year  old.  They  sailed  direct  from  Charleston.  John  B. 
Adger,  Jr.,  was  born  in  Charleston  February  7,  1839, 
and  was  baptized  at  Boujah  by  the  Rev.  Elias  Riggs  June 
18,  1840. 

To  meet  them  I  had  taken  the  French  steamer  at 
Smyrna,  passed  another  quarantine  alone  in  the  Castle  of 
St.  Angelo,  reading  McCrie's  Life  of  John  Knox  and 
other  histories  of  the  Reformation.  Again  landing  at 
Marseilles,  I  travelled  post,  in  company  with  three  young 
Scotchmen  returning  home  from  India  on  furlough,  and 
then  from  Havre  to  Liverpool. 

Stopping  awhile  in  London,  my  family  and  I  took  an 
English  steamer  back  to  Smyrna.  Arriving  there  in 
April  we  went  to  Boujah  for  the  summer.  I  rode  in  every 
day,  and  worked  with  my  translators  till  evening.  One 
day  in  August,  1840,  my  donkey  fell  with  me,  and  fell  on 


114  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

me,  hurting  my  right  knee.  My  physician  insisted  on  as 
much  rest  for  the  knee  as  was  possible,  and  I  had  to  blister 
it,  first  on  one  side  and  then  on  the  other,  for  the  eight 
folloAving  months,  and  did  not  go  at  all  to  Smyrna,  but  my 
manuscripts  and  proof  sheets  were  sent  to  me  daily  at 
Boujah.  In  my  house  I  used  a  crutch ;  when  I  had  occa- 
sion to  go  about  Boujah  I  rode  on  a  donkey.  One  Wed- 
nesday evening  after  preaching  as  usual  to  English  and 
American  residents  there,  I  rode  up  to  the  house  of  a 
dying  English  friend,  Mr.  Samuel  Barker,  for  one  of  my 
accustomed  visits  to  him.  His  brother,  Mr.  Benjamin 
Barker,  was  agent  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety, and  kept  a  depot  in  the  city,  of  their  books.  The 
Barker  family  consisted  of  several  sisters,  and  one  more 
brother,  Mr.  Henry  Barker.  They  were  of  English  de- 
scent, but  their  forefathers  were  old  residents  of  Smyrna. 
Mrs.  Samuel  Barker  was  of  the  French  Protestant  family 
of  La  Fontaines.  She  was  an  eminent  Christian  woman, 
full  of  faith,  and  devoted  to  prayer  for  her  sick  husband. 
He  had  been  ill  for  months  of  consumption.  She  had  beg- 
ged me  to  break  to  him  gently,  but  very  plainly,  what  was 
his  true  condition,  for,  like  most  consumptives,  he  was  by 
no  means  aware  of  it.  I  had  complied  with  her  request, 
and  did,  gently,  but  very  plainly,  make  him  understand 
that  he  was  a  dying  man.  He  received  my  communica- 
tions very  kindly,  but  evidently  did  not  believe  what  I 
said.  He  then  turned  the  tables  on  me,  and  being  some 
twenty  years  my  senior,  began  to  give  me,  very  kindly, 
but  very  decidedly,  his  opinion  as  to  the  great  impro- 
priety of  a  young  minister  speaking  so  plainly  to  a  sick 
man  about  his  o^\^l  death.  My  visit  on  that  occasion  did 
not  seem  to  have  made  the  desired  impression  on  his 
mind,  but  his  faithful  Christian  wife  was  at  that  very 
time,  and  always  wrestling  with  God  in  prayers  for  her 
husband,  not  so  much  that  he  would  give  him  life,  as  that 
he  would  give  him  "length  of  days  forevermore."  I 
visited  him  repeatedly.  He  was  a  man  of  excellent  moral 
character,  universally  respected  in  Smyrna,  but  he  was 
utterly  ignorant  of  the  gospel,  although  baptized  in  the 
English  Church,  and  a  regular  attendant  at  its  services 
in  the  chapel  of  the  British  Consulate  at  Smyrna.     He 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  115 

had  heard  sermons  there  by  good  chaplains,  and  had 
j)iously  joined  in  repeating  the  responses  through  all  the 
beautiful  prayers  of  the  English  Church,  ever  since  he 
was  a  boy,  but  he  had  never  learned  that  he  was  a  sinner, 
who  could  be  saved  only  through  grace.  When  I  talked 
with  him  of  our  transgressions,  which  could  only  be 
washed  away  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  he  heard  me  as  one 
speaking  to  him  in  an  unknown  tongue.  When  I  talked 
to  him  of  being  born  again,  he  received  it  just  like  Nico- 
demus,  with,  ''How  can  these  things  be  ?"  The  idea  being 
presented  to  him  that  we  could  not  be  saved  of  ourselves, 
but  only  through  another,  and  that  none  of  our  good  deeds 
or  good  words  could  be  accepted  by  God  except  through 
the  Mediator,  he  protested  that  he  had  never  heard  such 
incredible  things  as  I  was  stating.  When  I  said  to  him, 
"Why,  Mr.  Barker,  don't  you  close  every  prayer  with 
the  words,  'For  Jesus  Christ's  sake  ?'  or  with  others  just 
like  these  ?"  he  would  answer,  "Oh !  yes,  I  know  that,  but 
that  is  only  a  form  of  words  that  we  are  taught  to  use." 
!N"otwithstanding  all  this  dense  ignorance,  I  would  remem- 
ber how  earnestly  his  wife  was  pleading  for  him,  and  I 
could  not  but  hope  and  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God  was 
applying  the  truth  to  his  heart. 

At  the  Wednesday  evening  lecture  mentioned  above,  I 
had  expounded  Colossians,  first  chapter,  from  twelfth 
verse  to  twenty-second  inclusive.  When  1  got  to  j\lr. 
Barker's  sick  room,  I  took  the  same  passage  of  Scripture, 
reading  and  explaining  it  to  him.  Two  or  three  of  his 
sisters  stood  at  his  bedside,  no  one  of  them  probably 
knowing  any  more  of  the  gospel  than  he  did.  His  wife 
was  not  present.  I  think  I  knew  well  where  she  was,  and 
what  she  was  doing  at  the  time.  I  called  Mr.  Barker's 
attention  to  the  necessity  of  our  being  made  meet  for  the 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light,  and  of  our  being  deliv- 
ered from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  translated  into  the 
kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son ;  and  how  Jesus  had  made 
peace  for  us  by  the  blood  of  his  cross,  and  how  those  who 
were  alienated  from  him  by  wicked  works,  and  enemies 
in  their  mind  to  him,  he  does  now  reconcile  in  the  body 
of  his  flesh  through  death  in  order  to  present  them  holy 
and  unblameable  and  unreprovable  in  the  very  sight  of 


116  MY  LIFE  AKD  TIMES. 

God.  When  I  had  explained  these  things,  I  heard  a  voice 
from  the  dying  man's  pillow,  crying  out,  ''Mr.  Adger,  is 
that  what  you  say  I  must  believe  in  order  to  be  saved  r' 
I  replied,  "Yes,  Mr.  Barker,  that  is  it,"  and  I  then  re- 
peated several  other  passages  in  quick  succession  where 
the  same  precious,  saving  truth  is  set  forth.  "Well,  then," 
said  Mr.  Barker,  "if  that  is  what  I  must  believe,  I  do  be- 
lieve it."  His  wife's  prayers  had  been  answered.  It  was 
as  if  I  had  thrown  a  rope  to  a  drowning  man,  and  he  had 
seized  it,  and  I  had  seen  him  seize  it,  and  been  rescued. 
Mr.  Barker  lived  about  three  weeks.  Hitherto  he  had 
been  naturally  a  man  of  very  few  words.  His  tongue 
had  now  been  loosed ;  his  native  taciturnity  was  all  gone. 
I  may  say,  literally,  that  he  spent  all  his  remaining  life, 
henceforth,  telling  the  good  old  story  of  the  gospel  to  all 
that  came  about  him.  Alas !  they  certainly  did  not  all 
understand  what  he  said,  else  one  of  his  sisters  had  never 
said  what  was  reported  to  me,  viz.,  "When  I  am  dying  I 
want  some  one  to  come  and  tell  me  what  Mr.  Adger  told 
my  brother,  for  it  made  him  die  so  happily." 

January  1,  1841,  our  second  daughter  and  fifth  child 
was  born  at  Boujah,  and  was  named  after  her  mother, 
Elizabeth  Keith.  She  was  baptized  at  Boujah  by  Rev. 
Henry  Van  Lennep. 

In  April,  1841,  our  translation  of  the  jSTew  Testament, 
from  the  ancient  version  into  the  modern  Armenian  lan- 
guage, having  been  completed  at  Smyrna,  I  took  it  with 
me  to  Constantinople,  that  I  might  carefully  revise  it, 
with  the  aid  of  some  of  the  best  native  Armenian  talent 
that  I  could  command  there.  The  annual  meeting  of  our 
mission,  when  all  the  missionaries  assembled  at  the  cap- 
ital, was  to  be  held  the  following  month.  Expecting  to 
be  detained  there  the  whole  summer  with  my  revision. 
my  family  accompanied  me  to  the  annual  meeting.  I  was 
still  using  my  crutch  Avhen  I  walked,  and  my  knee  was 
still  feeling,  to  some  degree,  the  effects  of  my  fall.  I 
walked  up  to  see  Dr.  Dawson,  an  eminent  English  surgeon 
and  physician-i,  sent  by  the  British  government  to  show  the 
Sultan  how  to  establish  a  good  hospital.  He  advised  me 
to  lay  aside  my  crutch,  and,  leaving  it  in  the  entry  at  his 
boarding  house,  I  walked  immediately  perhaps  a  mile, 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  117 

and  had  no  more  trouble  with  my  knee.  The  annual 
meeting  was  held  very  soon  after  that.  Our  babe  took  the 
varioloid  from  the  children  of  Mr.  Johnson,  of  ISTorth 
Carolina,  missionary  at  Trebizond.  Mr.  Johnson  was  a 
Presbyterian,  a  godly  man,  and  very  useful  missionary, 
both  by  his  preaching  to  the  Armenians,  and  by  some  doc- 
trinal tracts  for  them  which  we  published  at  Smyrna. 
From  little  Lizzie  her  mother  took  the  varioloid,  and  I 
was  her  sole  nurse.  Her  case  was  a  serious  one,  though 
still  only  varioloid,  and  she  was  very  much  reduced.  Mr. 
Dwnght,  with  whom  we  were  lodging,  suggested  that,  on 
account  of  the  extreme  heat  of  the  weather,  and  my  wife's 
slow  recovery,  we  should  take  a  little  Turkish  koolah — 
that  is,  a  miserable  cottage,  with  a  little  miserable  garden 
attached,  on  one  of  the  hills  outside  the  city — seven  miles 
from  his  house,  and  remove  both  our  families  there.  He 
would  come  in  every  day  to  his  work  at  his  room  in  the 
khan  previously  mentioned.  I  would  go  on  with  my  Kew 
Testament  revision,  the  Armenian  reviser  joining  me 
daily  in  the  garden.  In  that  little  Turkish  garden,  seated 
on  a  rug  on  the  ground,  under  a  very  insufhcient  little 
shade  tree,  he  and  I  went  on  with  our  work.  My  wife  im- 
proved daily  quite  fast,  drinking  every  day  a  glass  of 
porter,  and  breathing  the  fresh  air  of  the  hills.  After 
being  there  about  a  week,  I  saw  red  spots  on  the  back  of 
each  of  my  hands,  which  I  attributed  to  the  heat  of  the 
sun  and  insulficient  shade.  This  was  on  Saturday.  On 
Sunday  Mr.  Dwight  and  I  walked  in  to  his  Armenian  ser- 
vice held  at  his  house.  I  preached  in  Armenian  to  his 
Armenian  congregation  of  about  one  hundred  persons. 
We  dined  at  Mr.  Goodell's  house,  which  was  nearby. 
About  an  hour  after  dinner,  I  began  to  feel  very  faint ;  it 
was  time  to  start  for  the  koolah,  and  I,  not  being  able  to 
walk,  we  went  to  one  of  those  numerous  places  in  the  city 
where  men  stand  with  horses  ready  saddled  for  hire.  We 
mounted,  but  every  mile  my  illness  increased ;  still  I  had 
no  suspicion  of  what  was  to  happen.  The  next  day,  Mon- 
day, I  lay  all  day  on  a  bench  in  the  little  garden,  and  an 
old  Armenian  friend  named  Oscan,  whom  we  greatly 
valued,  came  and  sat  by  me  for  several  hours.  Evening 
came  at  last,  and  brought  increased  miseiw  to  me ;    still  I 


118 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


suspected  nothing,  though  suffering  all  over  unspeakably. 
Our  bed  was  on  the  floor  under  a  window.  With  the  early- 
dawn  I  saw  what  the  matter  was,  my  hand  was  covered 
with  pustules.  As  soon  as  possible  we  procured  a  Turk- 
ish ox-carriage,  and,  with  my  little  family,  I  was  slowly 
carried  back  to  Mr.  Dwight's  house.  Next  day  (Wed- 
nesday) delirium  came  on,  and  continued  till  the  second 
Sunday  morning,  when  I  was  awakened  by  the  cries  of 
the  hucksters  passing  along  the  streets  under  my  windows 
with  their  vegetables.  I  had  small-pox  of  the  confluent 
kind,  over  my  whole  body ;  one  pustule  covered  the  whole 
back  of  each  hand.  I  had  become  a  black  man.  My  head 
and  neck  were  dreadfully  swollen,  and  my  nostrils  stop- 
ped up,  Maria  Shrewsbury,  with  my  two  children,  and 
their  nurse,  were  conflned  to  the  third  story  of  Mr. 
Dwight's  house,  and  my  wife  was  my  nurse.  One  Greek 
friend,  by  name  "Panayotes,"  so-called  in  honor  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  one  of  whose  idolatrous  titles  is  "Panagia," 
which  means  the  All  Holy,  a  most  excellent  Christian 
brother,  who  had  had  the  small-pox  himself,  assisted  my 
wife  in  the  care  of  me.  This  good  man,  being  an  excellent 
Turkish  scholar,  was  aiding  Mr.  Goodell  in  translating 
the  Bible  into  Armeno-Turkish — that  is,  into  the  Turkish 
language,  Avritten  with  Armenian  letters,  for  the  use  of 
Armenian  readers,  who  are  all  familiar  with  that  lan- 
guage. The  good  and  dear  Panayotes  was  one  of  the  only 
two  Greeks  whom  I  ever  learned  to  know  intimately  that 
would  not  tell  a  lie,  the  other  one  being  our  baby's  nurse, 
the  Greek  girl  Yanoula,  spoken  of  before.  Mr.  Dwight's 
servant  man,  an  Armenian,  by  name  Hatchadoor  (which 
means  "Devoted  to  the  Cross")  also  had  had  the  small- 
pox himself,  waited  on  my  wife  during  our  hour  of  trial. 
There  was  also  a  young  Scotchman,  not  very  long  resident 
in  Constantinople,  a  clerk  in  some  English  house  of  busi- 
ness. He  had  become  a  Christian  under  the  influence  of 
the  missionaries,  and  was  devoted  to  them.  He  came, 
and  was  with  us  for  a  day  or  two  when  we  first  got  back 
from  the  koolah,  and  in  the  zeal  of  his  first  Christian  love, 
he  was  willing  to  risk  his  life  in  waiting  on  me  through 
my  illness.  Of  course,  however,  this  had  to  be  early  for- 
bidden.    Our  physician  was  Dr.   Stamatiades,  a  Greek 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  119 

who  had  studied  in  America,  and  a  kind,  competent  and 
faithful  young  man.  But  he  was  desirous  of  bleeding 
me.  Dr.  Dawson,  the  English  physician  before  named, 
had  also  been  requested  to  come  and  see  me.  He  did  so, 
but  strongly  condemned  the  idea  of  bleeding.  He  said  it 
would  be  fatal  to  me.  After  my  delirium  passed  away  I 
began  to  recover.  I  was  forty  days  confined  to  my  room. 
In  my  inexperience,  full  of  ardor  in  the  work  committed 
to  me,  I  began  with  my  manuscripts  before  I  was  able  to 
get  out,  thus  inflicting  serious  and  lasting  injury  to  my 
already  impaired  sight.  When  sufficiently  recovered,  we 
went  over,  under  the  care  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Holmes,  a 
missionary  brother,  to  Broosa,  one  of  the  chief  cities  of  the 
interior,  for  a  visit  to  the  missionaries  there.  We  returned 
to  Smyrna  about  October,  1841.  I  was  able  to  attend  in 
some  measure  to  my  work,  but  was  an  invalid  for  eighteen 
months,  every  day  sensibly  gaining  a  little,  and  so  learn- 
ing by  experience  how  many  degrees  there  are  between 
extreme  illness  and  perfect  health.  The  winter  of  1842 
my  dear  friend  and  fellow-missionary,  the  Rev.  Simeon 
Howard  Calhoun,  one  of  l^ature's  noblemen,  and  a  ripe 
and  experienced  Christian  man,  boarded  in  my  family  in 
the  city.  He  was  agent  of  the  American  Bible  Society  in 
the  Levant ;  afterwards  became  a  missionary  of  the 
American  Board  in  Syria,  but  passed  over  Jordan  many 
years  ago.  I  look  forward  to  a  meeting  with  many  men 
of  God  whom  I  have  known  and  loved  in  this  world,  but 
few  they  are  whom  I  am  more  desirous  of  meeting  again 
than  Simeon  Howard  Calhoun.  That  same  winter  we 
entertained,  as  a  guest  at  our  house  for  several  months,  a 
most  excellent  young  minister  of  the  Church  of  England, 
to  whom  both  my  wife  and  I  became  greatly  attached. 
He  was  a  son  of  the  well-known  Ca?sar  Malan,  an  eminent 
man  of  God  at  Geneva,  Switzerland.  I  suppose  the  ex- 
treme views  on  some  points  of  doctrine  of  his  venerable 
father  had  a  good  deal  to  do  in  driving  the  young  man 
into  the  English  Church.  He  was  in  bad  health,  and  was 
spending  the  winter  in  our  mild  climate  for  that  reason. 
He  had  a  wonderful  aptitude  for  learning  languages,  and 
I  cannot  recall  how  many  various  tongues  of  men  he  had 
become  considerably  acquainted  with.     He  took  hold  of 


120  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  modern  Armenian  with  great  avidity,  and  before 
he  left  us  became  quite  an  adept  in  that  hinguage.  He 
must  have  continued  his  studies  in  Armenian  after  his 
return  to  Enghmd,  because  in  1868  he  published  the  Life 
and  Times  of  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator,  translated 
from  the  Armenian.  He  was  very  high  Church  in  his 
notions ;  and  it  was  instructive  as  well  as  amusing  to  be 
present  at  the  tilts,  usually  at  our  dinner  table,  between 
young  Malan,  the  accomplished  scholar  and  perfect  Chris- 
tian gentleman,  and  my  earnest  and  zealous,  but  no  less 
accomplished  and  competent  Puritan  friend  and  brother, 
Calhoun.  These  things  belong  to  over  fifty  years  ago. 
Malan  and  Calhoun,  differing  so  much  here,  yet  loving 
and  admiring  one  another  so  much  in  this  world,  I  doubt 
not,  are  often  walking  together  the  golden  streets  of  the 
new  Jerusalem,  where  I  hope,  ere  very  long,  to  walk  with 
them. 

Being  myself  so  much  of  an  invalid,  and  our  baby, 
Elizabeth  Keith,  being  very  sick  that  summer,  I  moved, 
with  my  family,  to  Bournabat  about  March,  1842,  my 
proof  sheets  being  daily  brought  out  to  me.  We  chose  to 
go  to  Bournabat  instead  of  Boujah,  for  variety,  and  be- 
cause it  was  pleasant  sometimes  to  get  within  two  miles  of 
it  by  being  rowed  in  a  boat.  The  baby  grew  very  much 
worse  as  the  summer  came  on.  One  day,  lying  on  her 
mother's  lap,  while  I  anxiously  looked  at  the  child,  we 
thought  we  saw  her  breathe  her  very  last,  but  she  breathed 
once  more,  and  I  said,  ''Let  us  instantly  get  donkeys, 
ride  to  the  landing  with  her,  take  a  caique,  and  go  across 
the  gulf  to  Mr.  Cohen's  koolah,  on  the  hills  outside  of 
Smyrna."  From  the  time  that  we  started  the  child  im- 
proved, and  on  those  hills  she  almost  entirely  recovered. 
I  must  tell  a  little  about  my  friend  Cohen.  He  was  what 
is  called  "a  converted  Jew,"  and,  as  such,  had  been  at- 
tached to  the  Jewish  mission  work  in  Smyrna,  under  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Bewis.  AVhether  he  was  really  a  converted  man 
or  not,  he  had  a  great  many  admirable  qualities  of  char- 
acter, and  we  were  devoted  friends.  His  wife,  when  a 
very  little  child,  escaped  somehow  the  massacre  of  her 
parents  in  tlie  Island  of  Scio,  when  they,  with  almost  all 
the  other  Greeks  of  that  beautiful  island,  were  put  to 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  121 

death  by  the  Turks.  This  child  was  taken  to  Smyrna 
and  sold  as  a  little  Greek  slave  to  some  benevolent  peo- 
ple ;  was  sent  to  Ireland,  and  there  educated  in  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  and  after  returning  to  Smyrna  was  married 
to  John  Cohen.  They  were  an  estimable  couple,  and 
during  my  fifteen  months'  solitude  in  Smyrna,  when  my 
wife  was  in  America,  I  had  got  them  to  come  and  live  at 
my  house  for  a  considerable  part  of  the  time  when  I 
boarded  with  them. 

Having  intimated  a  doubt  as  to  Mr.  Cohen's  being 
really  a  converted  Jew,  I  ought  to  add  that  he  certainly 
did  suffer  a  great  deal  of  persecution  from  his  own  people 
on  account  of  his  Christian  profession.  There  were 
twelve  young  Jews,  of  whom  he  was  one,  that  had  been 
baptized  by  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England,  by 
name  Leeves,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  a  short  time  before 
I  landed  first  in  Smyrna.  They  were  confined  in  a  Turk- 
ish prison  (or  perhaps  it  was  a  Jewish  prison)  called  the 
Bagnio,  and  I  rather  think  they  had  to  submit  to  the  bas- 
tinado, that  is,  to  being  beaten  on  the  soles  of  the  feet,  a 
most  cruel  punishment,  and  afterwards  they  were  ban- 
ished to  Kaisarieh,  the  ancient  Cffisarea,  in  the  centre  of 
Asia  Minor,  about  forty  days'  journey  from  Constanti- 
nople. Add  to  this  that,  of  course,  they  were  renounced 
forever  by  their  parents.  All  these  sufferings  they  hero- 
ically endured  for  the  name  of  Christ.  I  knew  John 
Cohen  intimately,  and  have  often  heard  him  talk  of  this 
history.  I  knew  one  more  of  the  tAvelve,  named  John 
Baptist,  very  slightly,  and  I  recollect  nothing  particular 
about  his  career.  All  the  others,  as  I  was  well  informed, 
subsequently  made  it  manifest,  by  their  lives  and  conduct, 
that  they  had  not  been  converted  to  Christ.  One  of  them, 
at  least,  became  a  Turk,  and  the  rest  lived  disgracefully. 
And  so  we  see  it  is  no  positive  proof,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, that  a  man  is  a  real  believer  because  he  suffers 
much  for  his  Christian  profession.  He  may  afterwards 
be  led  to  forswear  it.  He  may  seem  to  begin  in  the  spirit, 
but  he  may  finish,  as  the  Apostle  expresses  it,  in  the  flesh, 
"having  suffered  so  many  things  in  vain." 

As  I  have  spoken  of  John  Cohen,  I  must  not  omit  all 
mention  of  my  other  friends,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lewis  and  his 


122  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

lady.  They  were  Irish  folks  from  the  city  of  Cork,  be- 
longing to  the  Church  of  England.  I  was  very  intimate 
with  Mr.  Lewis,  as  was  my  wife  with  Mrs.  Lewis,  a  very 
admirable  woman.  He  came  to  the  East  as  a  missionary 
to  the  Jews,  but  was,  I  think,  unsuccessful,  and  subse- 
quently became  British  chaplain  at  Smyrna.  Somehow 
he  did  not  get  along  very  well  with  my  New  England  mis- 
sionary colleagues,  but  he  was  a  great  friend  of  mine. 

We  spent  a  month  or  more  with  the  Cohens  at  their 
koolah.  Erequently  at  night  he  was  visited  by  Turkish 
soldiers,  who  were  maintaining  some  kind  of  guard  not 
very  far  oif,  and  he  would  get  them  to  perforin  some  of 
their  Turkish  military  dances.  We  returned  in  June  to 
Bournabat,  and  we  remained  there  during  the  mild  and 
pleasant  winter.  Our  third  daughter,  named  Anna 
Maria,  after  her  mother's  two  sisters,  was  born  there, 
March  22,  1843.  She  was  baptized  by  my  friend,  the 
Rev.  Simeon  Lloward  Calhoun.  My  health  greatly  im- 
proved at  Bournabat,  and  about  the  month  of  October  we 
returned  to  the  city.  The  demand  for  our  books  was  in- 
creasing very  greatly,  and  I  was  encouraged  to  push  my 
work  of  translation  and  publication  to  my  utmost  ability. 
All  the  more  because  of  the  long  period  of  my  feeble 
health.  I  was  then  almost  thirty-three  years  old.  But, 
as  1  look  back  fifty-three  years,  I  see,  and  am  amazed  at 
my  want  of  prudence.  But  we  had  a  great  object  set  be- 
fore us.  It  was  becoming  more  and  more  evident,  as  I 
have  before  stated,  tliat,  amongst  the  Armenian  people, 
there  was  beginning  a  reformation,  in  very  many  respects 
just  like  the  great  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
It  was  on  a  small  scale,  of  course,  but  the  people  in  both 
cases  were  just  alike  as  to  their  spiritual  condition ;  they 
were  both  nominally  Christian,  but  the  Bible  did  not 
exist  for  either  of  them  in  a  language  which  they  under- 
stood. In  both  cases  it  had  to  be  translated  and  pub- 
lished. In  both  cases  a  few  earnest  souls  had  been 
awakened.  In  both  cases  the  light  began  to  spread,  the 
number  of  inquirers  to  increase,  and  more  and  more  we 
were  called  on  for  the  means  of  still  further  instruction 
and  advancement.  In  both  cases  the  ecclesiastical  power 
sought  to  put  down  inquiry  by  persecution,  and  in  both 
cases  the  effect  of  this  was  to  rouse  more  of  the  people  to 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  AKMENIANS.  123 

seek  after  the  truth.  Not  one  man  amongst  the  mission- 
aries but  felt  a  mighty  impulse  to  do  his  best  in  these 
exciting  circumstances.  For  myself,  I  was  moved  fre- 
quently to  continue  my  work  to  a  late  hour  at  night.  I 
remember  on  one  occasion,  with  poultice  on  my  right  eye 
on  account  of  a  sty  that  was  troubling  me,  I  found  my- 
self at  eleven  o'clock  at  night  still  working  with  the  other 
eye,  over  Armenian  manuscripts,  though  they  are  spe- 
cially trying  to  the  sight. 

During  the  ensuing  winter  we  had  a  visit  from  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Anderson,  Secretary  of  the  American  Board,  who 
was  accompanied  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawes,  an  eminent 
jSTew  England  pastor.  They  came  on  an  official  visitation 
to  all  the  missionaries  of  the  Board  in  Asia  Minor  and 
Syria.  Having  finished  their  inspection  of  things  in 
Asia  Minor,  they  were  ready  in  March,  1844,  to  set  sail 
for  Beirut.  While  sojourning  at  my  house.  Dr.  Anderson 
had  observed  that  I  was  overtasking  my  lately  recovered 
strength.  He  said  to  me,  "You  must  go  with  us  to  Jeru- 
salem." He  said  to  my  colleagues,  "If  Mr.  Adger  does 
not  break  off  again  for  awhile,  he  will  be  in  America  in 
about  twelve  months."  My  wife  accompanied  me,  and 
we  took  little  Anna  Maria  and  her  nurse.  We  all  went  by 
steam  to  Beirut.  Thence  we  were  to  travel  on  horseback 
to  the  Holy  City.  Our  little  one  and  her  faithful  nurse 
we  committed  to  the  care  of  our  kind  friend,  Mrs.  W.  M. 
Thompson.  Her  husband  was  the  man,  my  class-mate  at 
Princeton,  who  first  interested  my  heart  in  the  foreign 
missionary  enterprise.  I  bought  a  nice  pony  horse  and 
side-saddle  for  my  wife,  and  a  tall  grey  steed  for  myself. 
A  Miss  Watkins,  from  Hartford,  Conn.,  joined  our  party, 
and  so  the  deputation,  with  Mr.  Calhoun  and  the  Rev. 
Eli  Smith  and  Mr.  de  Forest  and  his  wife,  made  our  cav- 
alcade, in  number,  nine  persons.  We  had  to  carry  tents 
to  lodge  in  by  night,  and  Mr.  Smith  took  with  him  Yusief 
Ul  Rus  Jvulla,  with  his  pans  and  pots,  who  was  to  cook 
for  the  party.  However,  we  had  started  rather  early  in 
the  spring,  and  so  we  had  frequent  rains  on  our  way  down, 
which  compelled  us  to  seek  lodgings  instead  of  tenting 
at  night.  Our  first  day's  journey  brought  us  to  Sidon, 
where  we  saw  the  tomb  that  is  said  to  be    that    of    the 


124  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

prophet  Jonah.  Thus  far,  we  had  travelled  on  the  coast ; 
we  now  turned  towards  the  interior,  and  came  to  Beth- 
saida  and  Capernaum  at  the  head  of  the  Sea  of  Tiberias, 
where  there  is  nothing  to  be  seen  excej^t  one  solitary 
room  built  of  brick,  upon  entering  which  we  were  all  at- 
tacked by  the  inhabiting  fleas,  and  were  glad  to  make 
our  escape  immediately.  The  whole  country  seems  to  be 
filled  with  fleas.  We  spent  Sunday  at  the  town  of  Tibe- 
rias, where  the  natives  say  the  king  of  the  fleas  has  his 
capital.  It  was  rather  amusing  on  Monday  morning  to 
see  the  two  doctors  from  America  trying  to  pick  off  hun- 
dreds of  them  from  their  blankets.  Still  Tiberias  could 
not  help  being  a  city  of  profoundest  interest  to  us  all. 
Here  was  the  water  on  which  the  Saviour  walked,  and 
here  was  the  shore  where  he  flrst  called  four  of  his  disci- 
ples, and  these  Galilean  towns  were  the  chief  scenes  of 
his  wondrous  words  and  work.  There  seemed  to  be  but 
one  boat  at  use  on  the  lake.  Our  lodgings  were  at  a 
so-called  hotel,  and  we  dined  and  breakfasted  as  we  might 
well  suppose,  on  fish  lineally  descended  from  such  as  the 
apostles  caught  in  their  nets.  We  passed  through  Cana 
of  Galilee  on  Monday,  and  spent  that  night  at  Nazareth, 
where  our  Lord  was  brought  up,  being  entertained  by  a 
Greek  family,  friends  of  Eli  Smith.  At  that  house  we 
saw  in  use  several  of  those  "water  pots  of  stone,  after  the 
manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or 
three  firkins  apiece."  Leaving  Nazareth,  we  passed  by 
Mt.  Tabor,  stopped  awhile  at  the  city  of  Samaria,  saw 
the  well  on  which  Jesus  sat,  and  the  very  piece  of  ground, 
no  doubt,  which  Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph.  There 
could  be  no  doubt  about  this  piece  of  ground,  because  the 
mountains  and  the  plains  remain  just  as  they  were  in  our 
Saviour's  time.  At  length  we  reached  Jerusalem.  Dr. 
Anderson  was  anxious  to  be  the  first  one  to  enter  the  city, 
but  my  horse  was  better  than  his,  and  I  denied  him  that 
honor.  Here  we  found  a  missionary  of  the  Board,  a 
Charlestonian,  like  myself,  Kev.  John  F.  Lanneau,  and 
his  wife,  who  was  a  Miss  Gray,  from  Beech  Island.  I 
cannot  detail  all  that  we  saw  in  and  around  Jerusalem, 
which  made  a  pleasing,  yet  solemn  impression  on  the 
heart.    There  were  many  things  pointed  out  by  the  monks 


T.IFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  125 

and  other  natives  which  we  knew  to  be  their  mere  in- 
ventions. But  such  things  as  the  Valley  of  the  Kedron, 
and  most  probably  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  and  the 
Mt.  of  Olives,  were  there  just  as  nineteen  hundred  years 
ago.  We  were  in  time  for  the  grand  show  which  the 
Greeks  and  Armenians  display  on  Easter  Sunday  at  the 
so-called  tomb  of  Christ.  There  is  a  small  enclosed 
building  which  covers  the  alleged  tomb,  and  the  Greek 
and  Armenian  bishops  open  the  door  and  go  in  there 
alone,  and  then  send  holy  fire  outside  through  apertures 
in  the  wall.  The  Latins,  the  Greeks  and  the  Armenians 
each  have  a  church  building  opening  in  common  at  this 
tomb,  and  thousands  of  people  assemble  in  the  galleries, 
which  rise  one  above  the  other,  so  that  multitudes  were 
present  to  witness  the  miracle.  The  Romish  Church  for 
a  long  time  had  disowned  this  miracle,  and  accordingly 
their  bishop  took  no  part  in  it.  We  all  stood  high  up 
among  the  spectators,  looking  down  sadly  upon  this 
"Christian"  superstition.  Each  one  had  a  sheet  or  a 
night  dress,  or  some  other  article,  or  even,  perhaps,  a 
towel  or  handkerchief,  which  he  desired  to  have  sanctified 
by  these  holy  fiames,  and  he  expected  to  be  buried  in  these 
consecrated  articles.  And  each  one  held  a  candle  in  his 
hand.  As  soon  as  the  two  bishops  within  the  Holy  Sep- 
ulchre were  ready  to  thrust  out  the  sacred  light,  the  most 
favored  persons  that  stood  by  got  their  candles  lighted, 
and  then,  in  much  less  time  than  it  takes  me  to  write  this, 
every  candle  in  these  galleries  was  lighted,  and  the  house 
was  filled  with  a  holy  smoke.  An  earnest  devotee  would 
pass  his  hand  through  the  flame  of  his  candle  and  say  it 
did  not  burn.  My  friend  Calhoun,  a  big,  strong  man, 
grasped  the  hand  of  one  such  devotee,  and  made  him  hold 
it  in  the  flame  until  he  squealed  from  pain.  For  hours 
before  the  bishops  had  entered  the  tomb,  it  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  crowd  of  devotees.  But  they  could  not  be 
serious  for  so  long  a  time ;  consequently  one  would  be 
lifted  up  and  put  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  crowd,  and 
thus  would  go  creeping  on  their  heads  around  the  tomb ; 
not  seldom  offence  would  be  given  and  taken  by  some,  and 
there  would  be  a  little  fight,  and  then  one  of  the  Turkish 
guards,  placed  there  by  the  government  to  keep  order 


126  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

amongst  these  Christians,  would  ply  his  long  horhash,  and 
come  do^\Ti  with  sharp  lashes  on  their  unruly  shoulders. 

From  Jerusalem  we  went  down  to  the  Dead  Sea,  having 
a  guard  of  Turkish  soldiers,  because  that  country  is  still 
infested  with  robbers.  Long  before  reaching  the  Dead 
Sea  we  could  see  that  we  were  approaching  it.  The 
country  had  a  horrid  look,  just  as  one  might  expect  to  see 
it,  from  the  description  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  by  fire  from  heaven.  Thence  we  visited  Jeri- 
cho, and  saw  the  beautiful  stream  which  proceeds  from 
the  fountain  which  Elisha  healed,  and  which  runs  down 
and  enters  the  Jordan  just  above  the  Dead  Sea. 

Returning  to  Jerusalem,  our  party  divided,  Drs.  An- 
derson and  Hawes,  with  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Rev.  Eli 
Smith,  undertook  a  detour  through  the  Hauran,  which 
would  occupy  more  time  than  I  could  spare,  and  more 
fatigue  than  my  strength  would  admit,  not  to  speak  of 
our  three  ladies,  so  Dr.  and  Mrs.  de  Forest,  with  Miss 
Watkins  and  my  wife  and  myself,  determined  to  return 
at  once  to  Beirut.  We  took  a  somewhat  different 
route  on  our  journey  back,  passing  through  the  Val- 
ley of  Esdraelon,  beautifully  covered,  by  the  spring 
weather,  with  wild  flowers  of  various  colors  from  many 
different  plants.  The  whole  land  looked  like  one  vast 
carpet  of  red,  green  and  blue  hues  spread  out  before  us. 
We  were  able  to  tent  out  every  night.  Our  journey  being 
more  direct  and  no  rain  interfering  with  us,  we  accom- 
plished it  in  ten  days.  We  spent  one  delightful  Sunday 
near  the  ruins  of  old  Tyre  at  Ras-el-ain,  or  the  head 
fountain.  Here  there  issues  from  the  sand  of  the  shore 
an  immense  body  of  spring  water,  which  has  been  en- 
closed within  strong  stone  walls  in  the  form  of  an  octagon, 
and,  as  well  as  my  memory  serves  me,  at  least  ten  feet 
high,  and  sixty  or  seventy  feet  in  diameter,  the  water 
passing  off  through  a  stone  aqueduct  into  the  sea.  It  is 
a  very  ancient  piece  of  masonry,  and  is  credited  to  Hiram, 
king  of  Tyre,  the  friend  of  Solomon.  ^N"©  doubt  the  water 
comes  from  the  bosom  of  the  mountain,  finding  its  way 
down  below  the  shore,  and  forced  up  from  amongst  the 
rocks  there  to  the  surface.  The  walls  enclosing  this  mag- 
nificent fountain  are  several  feet  thick,  so  that  we  could 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  127 

walk  all  around  and  view  it  from  above.  I  have  spoken 
of  it  as  one  fountain,  but  not  far  distant  there  were  two 
others  just  like  this  one,  only  smaller.  The  day  we  spent 
there  was  fine.  We  pitched  our  tents  amongst  the  green 
grass,  which  grew  luxuriantly.  On  the  one  side  of  us 
were  the  mountains  of  Lebanon,  where  Hiram's  servants 
hewed  out  the  great  stones  for  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
and  on  the  other  side  of  us  was  the  sea,  upon  whose  bosom 
he  floated  down  these  rocks  to  Joppa,  and  thence  found 
means,  somehow  or  other,  to  transport  them  up  to  Jeru- 
salem. We  busied  ourselves  all  the  day  in  reading  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  which  give  an  account  of  all 
these  things.  Returning  to  Beirut,  we  found  little  Anna 
Maria  quite  well  and  overjoyed  to  see  us.  Her  exceeding 
great  delight  the  little  thing  manifested  very  touchingiy 
to  us  in  standing,  just  for  a  moment,  at  her  mother's  knee, 
and  then  crossing  over  and  standing  with  me,  just  for  a 
moment,  and  so,  from  one  of  us  to  the  other,  for  a  long 
time,  crossing  and  re-crossing,  until  she  had  worn  out  her 
happiness.  We  got  back  to  Smyrna  in  the  month  of  May, 
but  we  were  required  to  pass  a  quarantine  of  a  month,  two 
or  three  miles  from  the  city,  down  the  gulf.  Maria 
Shrewsbury  and  our  little  John  and  Lizzie  frequently 
came  down  to  cheer  us,  but  at  last  we  got  home  again  to 
them  and  to  our  work. 

Our  fourth  daughter,  Susan  Dunlap,  was  born  in  the 
city  of  Smyrna  February  6,  1845,  and  was  baptized  by 
the  Rev.  Thomas  P.  Johnson.  Shortly  before  this  event, 
our  dear  Maria  Shrewsbury  began  to  be  indisposed,  and 
the  indisposition  increased  upon  her  daily.  There  was 
more  or  less  of  typhoid  fever  in  the  city.  I  wished  to 
send  for  Dr.  Wood ;  she  objected  stoutly.  There  were  no 
symptoms  alarming  me  ;  she  was  simply  languid  and  pre- 
ferred to  lie  on  the  sofa  without  moving  about  much. 
This  continued  day  after  day.  Several  times  I  said  to 
her,  without  really  feeling  any  fear  myself,  "Maria,  you 
must  let  me  call  Dr.  Wood ;  this  may  be  the  beginning  of 
typhoid  fever."  Still  her  unwillingness  to  have  the  doc- 
tor called  continued  and  increased.  Her  indisposition 
having  lasted  about  ten  days,  her  sister  meanwhile  being 
all  this  time  very  unwell  and  remaining  upstairs  in  her 


128  MY  LIFE  AISTD  TIMES. 

chamber,  I  became  at  last  quite  alarmed,  and  then  my 
wife  joined  me  in  insisting  positively  that  the  doctor 
must  be  called.  When  he  came  he  told  me  that  we  had 
lost  too  much  time,  that  the  case  was  decidedly  typhoid 
fever.  He  required  her  to  take  to  her  bed,  and  began  to 
treat  the  case  vigorously,  but  could  not  break  the  hold 
which  the  fever  had  secured.  She  was  a  great  favorite 
with  everybody,  and  we  had  plenty  of  friends  to  assist  in 
nursing  her.  She  rapidly  grew  worse.  Delirium  came 
on,  and  in  a  short  time  death  closed  the  scene  on  the  11th 
day  of  January,  1845,  to  our  unspeakable  loss.  We 
buried  her  in  the  graveyard  of  the  Dutch  Consulate,  and 
a  marble  tombstone  marks  the  spot. 

She  was  a  noble  woman,  had  made  a  profession  of  her 
faith  publicly  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  church, 
Charleston,  along  with  other  new  converts,  just  before 
coming  to  Smyrna  with  her  sister.  She  naturally  missed 
the  many  and  various  means  of  grace  to  which  she  had 
been  introduced  during  a  revival  season.  The  experi- 
enced Christian  who  becomes  a  missionary  feels  this  loss 
when  he  first  enters  upon  his  new  life.  Besides  his  closet 
and  Bible  and  the  family  altar,  and  the  weekly  prayer- 
meeting  of  the  missionaries,  and  possibly  one  weekly 
public  service  in  English,  he  has  no  helps,  such  as  abound 
in  his  native  country,  where  Christian  intercourse  on  all 
sides  is  at  all  times  to  be  constantly  enjoyed.  Here  was 
a  young  and  inexperienced  believer  suddenly  cut  off  from 
almost  all  outside  assistance.  What  is  a  very  serious  ex- 
periment in  a  confirmed  believer  when  he  quits  a  Chris- 
tian country  and  goes  out  into  the  darkness,  is  a  very 
dangerous  experiment  for  the  young  Christian.  How 
soon  Maria  began  to  feel  its  effects  I  cannot  say.  They 
first  began  to  be  observed  by  me  when  I  noticed  a  repug- 
nance manifested  by  her  to  some  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible.  Every  Sunday  I  was  expounding  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  at  a  service  in  English  in  my  house,  which 
a  number  of  persons,  including  my  translators,  attended. 
Some  of  the  truths  set  before  us  by  the  apostle,  Maria  felt 
that  she  could  not  receive.  She  had  superior  powers  of 
mind,  like  her  two  sisters,  and  she  began  to  reason  against 
Paul's  doctrine.     Her  own  discovery  of  her  opposition 


LIFE  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS.  129 

to  the  Word  of  God  made  her  begin  to  doubt  whether  she 
was  a  Christian.  Had  this  occurred  to  her  at  home,  where 
Christian  influences  would  have  surrounded  her  on  all 
sides,  these  temptations  to  unbelief  by  the  arch-enemy 
might  have  been  more  easily  overcome,  but  she  was  out  in 
the  darkness,  and  to  a  considerable  degree  was  standing 
solitary  and  alone.  I  tried  often  to  help  her,  but  did  not 
succeed.  I  said  to  her  that  I  ought  to  remind  her  my 
view  of  Paul's  meaning  was  not  accepted  by  all  Christian 
believers.  Many  good  Methodist  people,  and  intelligent 
ones  too,  interpreted  him  differently  from  me.  "But," 
she  replied,  "I  see  with  my  own  eyes  that  you  do  correctly 
apprehend  his  meaning,  so  that  I  can't  take  any  comfort 
from  Arminian  errors  of  interpretation."  Mr.  Calhoun, 
who  admired  her  greatly,  sought  to  relieve  her  mind,  but 
in  vain,  so  did  other  missionary  brethren.  The  trouble 
with  her  was  that  she  saw  distinctly  the  absolute  sov- 
ereignty of  God,  as  Paul  sets  it  forth,  and,  as  her  heart 
did  not  cheerfully  bow  to  that  sovereignty,  she  could  not 
hope  that  she  was  a  true  Christian.  The  darkness  which 
enveloped  my  dear  young  sister  grew  deeper  continually. 
At  last,  as  she  told  me,  she  gave  up  all  reading  of  the 
Bible  and  praying.  She  continued  in  this  fearful  condi- 
tion for  some  months.  At  length,  in  the  mercy  of  our 
Lord,  the  darkness  began  to  abate  a  little.  Gradually, 
though  very  slowly,  she  was  brought  out  of  it,  and  light 
shone  into  her  soul  and  peace  with  the  light,  the  dreadful 
temptation  was  at  an  end,  and  she  was  again  a  cheerful 
Christian  believer.  All  this  preceded,  by  several  months, 
the  indisposition  which  ended  so  fatally.  She  had  always 
been,  ever  since  her  arrival  in  Smyrna,  the  object  of  pe- 
culiar affection  on  my  part.  I  loved  her  as  my  own  sister. 
The  dreadful  darkness  which  had  come  into  her  soul  made 
her  an  object  likewise  of  intense  solicitude  on  our  part. 
When,  therefore,  her  sister  being  still  confined  to  her  bed, 
I  stood  by  myself  at  Maria's  dying  bedside,  and  saw  her 
breathe  her  last,  my  heart  said,  "God  be  thanked  that  I 
have  seen  you  at  last  safe  over  the  river." 


CHAPTEK  VI. 

Visit  America  for  a  Year,  but  my  Return  was  not 

Allowed. — What  Followed. 

1846-1859. 

THE  two  years  which  followed  our  return  from 
Jerusalem,  in  June,  1844,  were  perhaps  the  busiest 
of  mj  missionary  life.  Our  modern  Armenian  N^ew 
Testament,  after  careful  revision,  had  been  printed  and 
published,  and  sent  into  wide  circulation.  So  had  the 
translation  of  the  Psalms  into  modern  Armenian,  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Dwight  and  myself.  There  had  begun, 
especially  in  Constantinople,  quite  a  controversy  between 
intelligent  Armenians,  who  adhered  zealously  to  their 
o^vn  church  views,  and  the  missionaries  there.  The  doc- 
trines of  grace  set  forth  on  our  side  were  vigorously  op- 
posed. So  there  were  numerous  tracts  and  pamphlets 
produced  in  the  discussion,  the  missionaries  using  our 
Smyrna  press, ,  and  their  adversaries  establishing  one  of 
their  own  at  Constantinople.  Every  month  we  issued  a 
sermon,  by  some  one  of  our  brethren,  adapted  to  the  times. 
The  Magazine  of  Useful  Knowledge,  which  I  edited,  a 
large  part  of  it  religious  matter,  was  appearing  every 
month.  My  time  was  chiefly  occupied,  however,  with 
abridging,  and,  with  Andreas  Varjabed's  assistance, 
translating  D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation  in 
Germany. 

It  was  a  period  of  agitation  in  the  Armenian  mind,  of 
which  we  were  doing  our  best  to  take  the  advantage.  This 
agitation  had,  indeed,  begun  years  before.  When  the 
truly  great  Sultan  Mahmoud  died,  in  July,  1839,  his  em- 
pire was  on  the  brink  of  ruin.  He  had  massacred  the 
Janizaries,  the  rulers  of  previous  Sultans,  but  their  de- 
struction required  him  to  organize  an  army  of  soldiers 
like  those  of  Europe.  His  navy  liad  been  in  a  very  re- 
markable way,  to  the  astonishment  of  both  Europe  and 


A  PERIOD  OF  AGITATION.  131 

Asia,  destroyed  by  the  English  fleet  at  J^avarino.  He 
had  built  and  sent  forth  a  new  one,  but  his  rebellious  vas- 
sal, lEehemet  Ali,  had  beaten  his  army  of  eighty  thousand 
in  Mesopotamia,  and  treacherously  got  possession  of  his 
navy.  At  this  very  time,  Malimoud,  of  the  eagle  eye  and 
the  iron  will,  departed  this  life,  and  Abdul  Med j id,  his 
son,  sixteen  years  old,  immediately  ascended  the  throne. 
Reshid  Pasha,  reputed  to  be  very  favorable  to  Great 
Britain,  became  the  prime  minister.  Very  soon  was 
issued  that  famous  and  historic  rescript,  entitled  '"Ilatti 
Scheriff  of  Qui  Ham."  It  was  first  promulgated  at  Gul 
Ham,  which  signifies  the  rose  garden,  a  portion  of  the 
ground  within  the  Seraglio  Point.  According  to  this  re- 
markable document,  all  bribery  and  corruption  were  to 
cease  in  the  Ottoman  Empire,  and  perfect  equality  of 
rights  was  to  be  enjoyed  by  all  its  inhabitants.  'Eo  one 
was  to  be  executed  without  having  a  public  trial.  The 
true  value  of  this  document  (in  the  words  of  Dr.  Ham- 
lin) is  to  be  sought  in  its  effects  upon  the  people,  more 
than  upon  the  administration  of  the  government.  It 
went  all  through  the  empire.  It  woke  up  the  slumbering 
East.  It  was  the  first  voice  that  announced  to  the  people 
the  object  of  government  and  the  legitimate  ends  to  be 
attained  by  it.  It  gave  the  Rayahs  (that  is  to  say,  the 
Christian  subjects  of  the  empire)  courage  to  contend  for 
their  rights.  It  brought  forward  the  novel  idea,  that  men 
should  be  equal  before  the  law,  and  all  accused  persons 
should  be  entitled  to  a  fair  and  public  trial.  It  set  aside 
the  powerful  and  pernicious  clique  of  government  bank- 
ers. It  diminished  the  civil  power  of  the  clergy.  In  a 
word,  it  loudly  changed  the  current  of  thought,  putting 
it  into  new  channels,  never  to  revert  again  to  the  old.  It 
kindled  the  rage  of  the  old  Mussulmans,  but  it  greatly  ex- 
cited the  hopes  of  the  party  of  progress  among  the  Turks, 
as  well  as  those  of  the  oppressed  Rayahs. 

It  was  about  three  years  after  the  publication  of  this 
remarkable  constitution  for  the  Turkish  empire  that  an 
Armenian  named  Carabet,  otherwise  called  Hovakim, 
was  executed  as  an  apostate  from  Islam.  His  headless 
body  was  found  lying  in  a  public  street  on  the  outside  of 
the  Seraglio  w^alls.    His  head,  with  a  Frank's  cap  stuck  on 


132  MlY  life  and  times. 

it,  was  put  between  his  thighs.  Thus,  after  a  very  short 
period,  the  sacred  Ilatti  Scheriff  is  trampled  uuder  foot, 
to  the  rejoicing  of  the  old  Mussulman  party,  but  to  the 
extreme  dissatisfaction  and  contempt  and  vexation  of 
the  party  of  progress  amongst  the  Turks.  It  also  aroused 
the  indignation  of  all  the  European  ambassadors  at  Con- 
stantinople, Russia  alone  excepted.  The  English  ambas- 
sador, Sir  Stratford  Canning,  took  the  lead,  insisting  that 
the  Sultan  should  make  a  solemn  promise  that  such  an 
act  on  the  part  of  his  government  should  never  be  re- 
peated. This  was  given  first  by  the  Grand  Vizier  of  the 
empire,  but  repeated,  in  a  personal  interview,  by  the  Sul- 
tan, which  Sir  Stratford  had  demanded.  And  the  next 
day  the  Sultan  gave  his  assent  to  all  this,  in  a  public  audi- 
ence, adding,  "ISTeither  shall  Christianity  be  insulted  in 
my  dominions,  nor  shall  Christians  be  in  any  way  perse- 
cuted for  their  religion." 

How  could  the  events,  to  which  I  have  been  referring, 
fail  of  producing  great  excitement  amongst  all  the  differ- 
ent races,  providentially  associated  together,  in  Constan- 
tinople, and  the  other  cities  of  the  Turkish  empire,  each 
of  these  races  zealously  addicted  to  its  own  religion  ? 

Their  effect  upon  the  Christian  Rayahs  was  very  de- 
cided. They  had  understood  the  Haiti  Scheriff  to  confer 
on  them  important  and  sacred  rights.  They  saw  these 
rights  were  trampled  on  in  the  execution  of  Carabet.  Of 
course,  there  was  excitement  amongst  them.  The  spirit 
of  religious  inquiry,  which  had  been  previously  roused 
amongst  the  Armenians,  was  naturally  very  much  pro- 
moted. The  missionary  cause  amongst  them  was  much 
advanced.  These  events  sensibly  diminished  the  power 
and  influence  of  the  patriarch  and  other  ecclesiastics. 
Their  attention  also  being  absorbed  by  these  events,  the 
missionaries  were  enabled  to  go  quickly  on  with  their 
work  in  its  various  departments. 

ISTevertheless,  in  this  very  period  of  deep  interest  and 
high  excitement,  I  was  being  providentially  led  to  con- 
sider, seriously,  the  question  of  returning  with  my  fam- 
ily to  my  own  country  for  a  visit  of  twelve  months.  Ten 
years  before  this  time,  when  we  first  sailed  for  Smyrna 
to  be  missionaries,  we  had  no  expectation  of  ever  return- 


MY  VISIT  TO  AMEKICA.  133 

ing  home  again.  At  that  period  the  prevalent  idea  was 
that  the  foreign  missionary  embarked  for  his  whole  life. 
It  was  enlistment,  then,  for  the  whole  war.  The  church 
had  not  then  come  to  consider  it  expedient  that  mission- 
aries should  have  a  furlough  after  some  years'  service. 
Still,  upon  occasion,  it  sometimes  happened  that  a  mis- 
sionary had  to  return  home  on  some  particular  errand  of 
importance.  In  my  case,  there  was  a  failure  of  eyesight, 
which  had  indeed  slightly  manifested  itself  at  the  close  of 
my  Seminary  life,  but  which  my  peculiar  missionary  call- 
ing, and  especially  the  effects  of  small-pox,  had  aggra- 
vated. The  inspection  of  manuscript,  and  the  examina- 
tion of  proof  sheets  in  the  Armenian  language,  is  quite 
trying,  even  to  a  sound  eye,  owing  to  the  great  similarity 
of  many  of  the  letters  used.  I  began  to  think  a  year's 
rest  would  be  advantageous.  And,  as  my  father  and 
mother  were  approaching  three-score  and  ten,  and  re- 
peatedly expressed  the  desire  to  see  me  once  more,  I  was 
conferring  with  my  brethren  at  Constantinople,  and  re- 
luctantly considering  how  I  could  best  prepare  for  the 
voyage  and  visit. 

During  the  year  1845  there  began  to  be  talk  of  organiz- 
ing an  evangelical  alliance  of  all  Christian  believers. 
This  was  to  be  attempted  in  the  summer  of  1846  in  the 
city  of  London.  As  this  period  approached,  and  the  de- 
termination was  reached  that  I  should  go  on  my  visit 
home,  my  brethren  in  Constantinople  expressed  the  wish 
that,  passing  through  London,  I  should  represent  our 
mission  in  this  convention.  The  invitation  to  this  assem- 
bly had  at  first  been  for  all  evangelical  churches  and  min- 
isters. Afterwards  it  was  published  that  no  slaveholder 
would  be  admitted.  The  anti-slavery  discussion  in  the 
United  States,  I  well  remember  as  beginning  during  my 
last  year  at  Princeton,  and  I  had  read  perhaps  the  very 
first  number  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison's  paper.  The  Lib- 
erator, but  it  had  made  little  progress  in  America,  up  to 
the  time  of  my  embarkation  for  Smyrna.  During  the  ten 
or  eleven  years  of  my  missionary  life  up  to  this  time,  it 
had  not  very  greatly  interested  me,  being  absorbed  in  my 
Armenian  work.  The  published  denial  to  all  slaveholders 
of  admission  to  the  alliance,  of  course,  set  me  to  thinking, 


134  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

and  what  I  had  never  thought  of  before  arrested  my  atten- 
tion now,  viz.,  that,  in  a  sense,  I  was  one  of  those  who 
were  guilty  of  the  sin  of  holding  slaves.  In  the  course  of 
correspondence,  I  mentioned  this  discovery,  which  I  had 
made,  to  my  brethren  in  Constantinople.  More  than  one 
of  them  had,  not  long  before  this,  returned  from  Amer- 
ica, and  they  wrote  me  at  once,  very  positively,  that  unless 
I  could  get  rid  of  this  relationship,  I  would  never  be  able 
to  get  back  to  the  Armenian  work.  Consequently,  I  wrote 
at  once  to  my  wife's  sister,  saying  that  we  renounced  all 
right  or  title  to  any  property  in  these  slaves,  but  I  re- 
solved at  the  same  time  to  abjure  the  honor  of  a  seat  in  the 
alliance.  To  my  astonishment,  I  found  my  brother-in- 
law.  Dr.  Thomas  Smyth,  in  London.  He  had  overworked 
his  strength,  and  had  crossed  the  Atlantic  for  rest.  He 
urged  my  attending  the  alliance  with  him,  stating  that 
they  had  resolved  to  receive  slaveholders,  at  the  prelim- 
inary conferences,  under  protest.  I  had  engaged  our 
passage  to  Kew  York,  and  had  some  ten  days  to  spare  be- 
fore sailing  from  Liverpool,  so  we  went  in  together.  Dur- 
ing the  whole  time  of  my  attendance,  this  Evangelical 
Alliance  proved  to  be  nothing  at  all  but  a  gathering  of 
abolitionists,  to  denounce  slaveholders  for  their  sins. 
There  were  present  well-known  Unitarian  and  Univer- 
salist  ministers,  against  whose  membership  not  a  word 
was  raised.  These  were  more  evangelical  than  any  slave- 
holder could  be!  There  were  some  twenty-odd  Ameri- 
cans in  the  preliminary  conference,  nearly  all  from  the 
JSTorthern  States,  but,  to  a  man,  they  all  resisted  the  claim 
of  an  evangelical  alliance  to  legislate  against  slavehold- 
ing.  Dr.  Skinner,  of  ITorth  Carolina,  originally,  but 
then  of  Philadelphia;  Dr.  Humphreys,  originally  of 
Massachusetts,  but  then  of  Louisville;  Dr.  Smyth  and 
myself,  if  I  remember  rightly,  were  all  that  hailed  from 
the  South.  Dr.  Samuel  H.  Cox,  of  I^ew  York,  was  the 
acknowledged  leader  on  the  American  side.  After  some 
ten  days'  earnest  discussion,  the  question  of  admitting 
slaveholders  to  an  evangelical  alliance  was  referred  to  a 
committee.  Their  report  came  in  on  Saturday  night. 
There  was  intense  excitement  in  the  body.  The  report  ex- 
cluded   all    slaveholders.     Sir    Culling    Eardley  Smith, 


MY  VISIT  TO  AMERICA.  135 

chairman  of  the  body,  was  manifestly  for  rushing  the  re- 
port through,  without  discussion.  As  he  was  about  to 
put  tlie  question,  I  lifted  my  voice  in  protest,  which 
caused  a  check  in  the  chairman's  movement.  Dr.  Smyth, 
who  was  standing  alongside  of  me,  ejaculated  that  I  was 
a  missionary  from  Turkey,  thinking  thereby  to  give  some 
weight  to  my  few  words  of  protest.  Dr.  Humphreys,  who 
was  standing  on  the  other  side  of  me,  cried  out  that  he 
seconded  my  protest.  Dr.  Smyth  did  the  same.  And 
then,  to  my  great  delight,  one  after  another,  if  I  do  not 
mistake,  the  whole  American  delegation  backed  us  up. 
But,  nevertheless,  the  report  was  adopted. 

My  time  was  up,  and  on  Monday  morning  I  took  my 
family  to  Liverpool,  and  sailed  for  ISTew  York.  The 
Evangelical  Alliance  met  that  morning,  and  the  chairman 
called  on  the  Rev.  Gorham  Abbott,  of  Massachusetts,  a 
most  devout  and  lovely  Christian  brother,  whom  I  well 
knew,  to  lead  the  Alliance  in  prayer.  What  followed  was 
afterwards  reported  to  me.  Mr.  Abbott's  was  a  most 
touching  prayer,  deploring  before  the  Lord  our  Saviour 
the  sad  division  which  had  arisen  in  the  body,  and  be- 
seeching that  it  might  yet  be  healed.  After  that,  the 
Americans  spoke  again,  explaining  to  their  English 
brethren  that  the  state  of  public  sentiment  amongst  Chris- 
tians generally,  in  their  country,  was  such  that  the  report 
could  not  be  sustained.  Accordingly,  it  was  recommitted, 
and  so  modified  as  to  be  acceptable  to  all.  How  much 
the  modifications  amounted  to  I  cannot  now  recall. 

On  my  arrival  in  New  York  I  was  received  by  my 
brothers,  James  and  Ellison,  and  my  sisters,  Susan  and 
Jane  Anne,  with  a  very  warm  welcome.  There  was  an 
English  girl,  some  fifteen  years  old,  in  Smyrna,  to  whose 
father,  an  honest  blacksmith,  I  had  been  helpful  in  in- 
ducing him  to  give  up  intoxicating  drink.  Mr.  Jones  was 
grateful,  and  when  my  wife  wished  to  get  Harriet's 
help  in  carrying  our  youngest  child  across  the  water,  he 
gave  his  cheerful  consent,  and  I  promised  in  remunera- 
tion to  give  her  a  year's  schooling  at  some  good  ISTew  Eng- 
land institution,  and  to  procure  her  safe  ])assage  home 
again.  My  first  business,  after  arrival  in  ^N'ew  York,  was 
to  take  Harriet  Jones  to  Hartford,  Conn.,  and  place  her 


136  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

with  j\frs.  Bird  in  a  scliool  which  her  husband,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Bird,  formerly  a  missionary  to  Syria,  had  recently 
established  there.  Harriet  was  a  dear,  good  child,  a  pro- 
fessing Christian,  very  much  attached  to  little  Susie  and 
her  mother,  and  we  were  greatly  attached  to  her.  Susie 
took  quickly  to  her  uncle  James,  in  place  of  Harriet.  His 
petting  won  her  heart,  and  using  the  Greek  language, 
which  was  the  most  familiar  to  her,  she  called  him  "allo- 
papa,"  that  is,  my  other  father.  The  steamship  South- 
erner was  about  to  sail  on  her  first  or  second  voyage  to 
Charleston,  and  my  family  all  went  with  my  brothers 
and  sisters  in  her.  I  felt  it  became  me  to  repair  first 
to  Boston,  and  report  to  the  Prudential  Committee  of  the 
Board.  Secretary  Anderson,  who  had  been  at  my  house 
in  Smyrna,  took  me  home  with  him  to  the  neighboring 
village  of  Roxbury.  My  visit  was  of  several  days.  We 
went  in  together  every  morning,  and  I  spent  the  day  at 
the  missionary  rooms.  On  one  of  those  evenings,  as  we 
walked  home  together,  I  turned  to  him  suddenly,  and 
said,  "Dr.  Anderson,  I  have  lately  discovered  that  I  am 
a  slaveholder  through  my  wife."  He  started,  as  if  I  had 
shot  him.  He  said,  "I  am  very  sorry  to  hear  what  you 
say,"  and  he  proceeded  to  tell  me  how  necessary  it  would 
be  to  rid  myself  of  that  relationship.  I  told  him  what  I 
had  already  written  to  my  wife's  sister,  and  he  urged  that 
if  that  did  not  prove  to  be  sufiicient,  I  would,  on  reaching 
Charleston,  do  whatever  else  was  necessary  to  accomplish 
the  result.  He  then  gave  me  an  account  of  what  infinite 
trouble  John  Leighton  Wilson's  case  had  given  both  to 
Wilson  and  the  Board.  He  said  that  when  it  was  pub- 
lished throughout  ]!^ew  England  that  I  was  a  missionary 
from  Charleston,  the  inquiry  would  be  immediately 
raised  whether  I  was  a  slaveholder ;  and  that  the  attack 
of  the  abolitionists  upon  the  Board,  which  had  quieted 
down  somewhat,  would  be  renewed  with  vigor,  and,  as  in 
Wilson's  case,  it  would  cost  the  Board  one-half  their  an- 
nual resources,  besides  giving  them  and  me  a  great  deal 
of  annoyance  by  the  public  discussion.  Dr.  Wilson,  it 
will  be  remembered,  before  becoming  a  foreign  mission- 
ary, thought  fit  to  send  all  his  slaves,  some  eighteen  in 
number,  to  Liberia,  with  the  exception  of  one  boy,  whom. 


MY  VISIT  TO  AMERICA.  137 

for  some  reason  or  other,  he  allowed  to  remain  with  his 
own  family  as  a  slave.  "The  Board,"  said  Dr.  Anderson, 
''had  refused  to  give  up  the  missionary  Wilson,  prefer- 
ring to  submit  to  the  bitterest  and  most  injurious  re- 
proaches on  his  account."  As  for  himself.  Dr.  Anderson 
told  me,  and  I  record  it  here  to  his  honor,  that  he  would 
have  seen  the  American  Board  shivered  into  fragments 
rather  than  have  dishonorably  and  unjustly  abandoned 
John  Leighton  Wilson. 

The  discussion  in  the  Evangelical  Alliance  had  waked 
me  up  to  the  importance  of  the  anti-slavery  controversy. 
Sympathy  with  my  own  people  was  roused  in  me.     I 
made  no  promise  to  Dr.  Anderson.    Arriving  at  home,  my 
attention  was  soon  drawn  to  the  religious  condition  of  the 
negroes  in  the  city.     In  Dr.  Smyth's  church  there  were 
some  three  hundred  colored  members.     I  often  looked  at 
them,  as  they  sat  in  the  gallery,  and  felt  how  far  preach- 
ing to  his  white  congregation  went  over  their  heads.     The 
same  was  true  of  Dr.  Forrest's  church,  the  First  Presby- 
terian, where  there  were  some  five  hundred  negro  mem- 
bers.    In  the  different  Methodist  churches  the  colored 
membership  was  some  five  thousand.     In  all  the  other 
churches,  especially  the  Baptist,  there  was  a  large  colored 
membership,   so  that  the   total   colored  membership   in 
Charleston  could  not  have  been  less  than  some  eight  or 
ten  thousand  persons.     It  was  divided  out  more  or  less 
thoroughly  into  classes,  under  the  leadership  of  chosen 
colored  men  of  good  repute.     There  were  at  least  twelve 
thousand  negroes,  however,  in  Charleston,  not  included 
in  this  membership,  and  there  was  good  reason  to  believe 
that,  among  the  colored  leaders,  many  were  both  incompe- 
tent and  unfaithful.     Before  I  went  abroad  my  thoughts    v^ 
had  turned  to  this  people,  and  I  had  considered  the  ques-   / 
tion  of  following  in  the  track  of  Dr.  C.  C.  Jones,  who  was  [^ 
an  apostle  to  the  negroes  of  Liberty  county,  Ga.     But  the   \ 
call  of  the  heathen  world,  where  no  gospel  at  all  had  ever    \ 
been  preached,  appeared  to  me  to  outweigh  that  of  negroes      \ 
in  this  Christian  country,  where,  in  a  great  many  of  the      / 
Christian  churches  throughout  the  whole  South,  more  or  J 
less  attention  was  paid  to  their  spiritual  wants.     Besides 
this,  in  the  city  of  Charleston,  and  no  doubt  in  many 


138  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

otlier  Southern  cities  and  towns,  as  well  as  in  country 
neighborhoods,  the  white  children,  in  many  a  family, 
were  teaching  the  negroes,  old  and  young,  to  read  the 
Bible.  Very  often,  however,  during  my  missionary  life, 
my  thoughts  had  reverted  to  the  negro  field  at  home,  and 
sometimes  I  questioned  whether  I  had  done  right  to  turn 
my  back  on  it.  But  coming  back  to  my  native  city,  from 
missionary  labors  to  the  Armenians,  who  are  a  nominally 
Christian  people,  my  old  interest  in  the  Southern  negroes 
naturally  reasserted  itself.  I  thought  I  saw  plainly  that 
Christianity,  as  accepted  by  white  masters,  had  not  ade- 
quately impressed  itself  on  their  poor  black  dependents. 
It  seemed  very  clear  that  the  men  of  my  race  could  not 
properly  discharge  their  duty  to  their  slaves  vicariously. 
They  could  not  righteously  meet  their  religious  obliga- 
tions to  human  beings,  providentially  brought  under  their 
control  and  care,  by  throwing  them  upon  the  shoulders  of 
half-instructed  men  of  their  own  color.  I  said  to  myself, 
it  certainly  is  time  for  some  white  minister  to  make  a 
beginning  of  public  instruction,  specially  and  separately, 
for  the  negroes,  in  the  performance  of  which  he  should  be 
assisted  by  white  teachers  under  his  leadership.  Such  a 
beffinnine-,  I  was  convinced,  with  the  blessing  of  God, 
must  be  followed  by  auspicious  results,  m  more  than  one 
direction.  Conferring  with  my  brother  William,  who 
was  an  elder  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  church,  consid- 
erably younger  than  myself,  but  in  whose  religious  char- 
acter and  sound  judgment  I  had  the  very  highest  confi- 
dence, I  found  him  perfectly  alive  to  these  views,  and  I 
had  good  reason  to  consider  him  a  fair  representative  of 
the  sentiments  of  the  most  enlightened  Christian  people 
in  the  city. 

But  I  myself  was  a  missionary  to  the  Armenians,  at 

f  home  only  for  a  visit.    My  work  amongst  them  was  wait- 

\     ing  for  me.     It  was  an  important  and  encouraging  one, 

attractive  to  me  in  the  highest  degree,  and,  as  being  liter- 

/    ary  work,  was  suited  to  my  individual  taste,  shared  by 

me  with  brethren  in  whom  I  had  the  highest  confidence, 

and  for  them  all  undying  affection.     I  was  happy  in  that 

work.     There  was  no  position  in  the  church  at  home  that 

I  would  compare  with  it  in  any  respect.     Yet  I  did  feel 


MY  VISIT  TO  AMERICA.  139 

that,  as  a  Southern  Christian  minister  of  the  white  race,  ^ 
and  indirectly  a  slaveholder  myself,  the  negro  had  a  claim  ] 
on  me  which  I  was  bound  to  consider. 

My  own  judgment  being  thus  unsettled  by  conflicting 
views  of  a  question  very  important  to  me,  I  naturally  de- 
sired to  confer  with  Dr.  Anderson.  I  had  been  consider- 
ably intimate  with  him.  We  had  been  in  each  other's 
families,  and  so  knew  each  other  well.  I  still  possess  sun- 
dry letters  addressed  to  me  by  him  during  my  life  in 
Smyrna,  upon  w^hich  he  wrote  "Private"  and  "Confiden- 
tial." Thus,  as  early  as  ISTovember,  I  had  communicated 
to  him  some  impressions  made  on  my  mind  by  the  infor- 
mation I  had  acquired  of  the  religious  condition  of  the 
negroes  in  Charleston.  I  continued  to  acquaint  him  by 
letters,  at  different  times,  with  the  course  of  my  own 
thoughts  on  this  subject,  and  I  have  in  my  possession 
brief  notes  showing  the  drift  of  the  letters  which  I  wrote 
to  him.  I  was  not  writing  to  him  for  advice.  It  was,  on 
my  part,  just  a  friendly  correspondence  with  one  whom 
I  greatly  revered,  intended  to  show  him  how  I  was  feeling 
regarding  this  matter,  and  to  draw  forth  some  expression 
of  his  feelings  in  return.  The  first  few  of  his  replies  I 
have  lost,  but  I  still  possess  one  of  date  January  8,  1847. 
This  was  a  hurried  and  exceedingly  brief  one.  He  was 
a  very  busy  man,  continually  having  difficult  questions 
pressing  on  his  mind — and  many  of  them  both  very  difli- 
cult  and  very  delicate.  In  the  letter  just  referred  to  (and 
I  feel  sure  this  was  the  case  with  the  others,  which  during 
these  fifty  years  have  passed  out  of  my  possession)  there 
is  not  one  consideration  presented  by  him  in  favor  of  my 
return  to  Smyrna.  I  subjoin  a  copy  of  my  reply  to  this 
brief  letter. 

[Copy.] 

Charleston,  January  20,  1847. 
Rev.  R.  Anderson,  D.  D.,  Secretary,  etc. 

My  Dear  Brother:  Yours  of  the  8th  inst.  I  duly  received.  I 
remember  your  observation  to  me  in  Smyrna  respecting  the  dis- 
agreeable position  into  which  you  were  once  put  by  an  appointed 
missionary,  who  was  led  to  doubt  whether  he  ought  not  to  remain 
at  home,  but  who  desired  to  get  the  Prudential  Committee  to  take 
on  them  the  responsibility  of  deciding  that  he  ought  to  stay,  and 


1-40  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

who  labored  hard,   but  in  vain,  to  get  them  to  take  that  respon- 
sibility. 

I  am  far  from  wishing  you,  or  them,  to  take  this  responsibility 
in  my  case,  though  I  am  sincerely  desirous  to  get  your  aid,  as  far 
as  possible,  in  deciding  the  question  myself.  And  I  think  that  a 
missionary,  twelve  years  connected  with  you,  and  always  enjoying 
your  confidence,  has  a  right  to  your  brotherly  advice  and  counsel. 

Will  you  pardon  me  for  saying  that  I  have  looked  for  some  con- 
siderations to  be  suggested  by  you  on  the  side  of  my  returning  to 
Turkey? 

It  has  occurred  to  me  that  perhaps  you  thought  the  question  was 
from  the  first  really  decided  in  my  mind;  but  this  was  not  and  is 
not  now  the  case,  although  I  feel  that  I  am  gradually  verging  to  a 
decision. 

One  other  cause  for  your  silence,  respecting  the  claims  of  the 
Armenian  work  upon  me,  has  suggested  itself,  and  I  beg  that  you 
will  candidly  tell  me  if  it  has  really  had  any  weight  in  your  mind. 
Do  you  apprehend  any  embarrassment  to  the  board  from  my  return, 
in  reference  to  that  nominal  relation  which  I  mentioned  to  you  that 
I  had  renounced?  or  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  slavery?  And 
has  this  affected  your  letters  to  me  in  any  shape  or  form? 

I  know  what  trouble  you  have  had  with  the  case  of  Mr.  Wilson, 
and  how  natural  it  will  be  for  people  to  be  inquiring  all  about  me 
when  I  come  to  set  sail  again  for  Smyrna.  As  to  that  relation 
above  referred  to,  the  matter  stands  exactly  in  statu  quo — I  have 
done  nothing  more  about  it. 

Yours  (signed),     Jno.  B.  Adger. 

To  this  letter  I  received  a  reply,  of  which  I  subjoin  a 

copy: 

Missionary  House,  Boston,  January  27,  1847. 

Rev.  J.  B.  Adger,  Charleston,  S.  C. 

My  Dear  Brother:  I  yesterday  received  yours  of  the  20th.  I 
fully  admit  your  right  to  whatever  brotherly  advice  and  counsel 
my  circumstances  enable  me  to  give  you.  I  will  say  more;  you 
are  entitled  to  tlie  utmost  frankness  on  my  part,  and  you  shall 
have  it.  In  neither  of  my  letters  do  I  believe  that  I  had  so  much  as 
a  thought  of  your  ever  becoming  so  related  to  slavery  as  to  occasion 
us  any  trouble.  I  did  not  think  of  it,  and  consequently  my  seeming 
reserve  was  not  owing  to  that.  What  effect  thinking  much  on  that 
subject  would  have,  I  cannot  tell.  I  believe  you  are  as  desirous  as 
any  one  I  know  of  to  do  what  is  right  in  relation  to  that  thing,  and 
I  have  not  believed  myself  called  on  to  spend  time  in  imagining 
what  troubles  you  might  be  the  occasion  of  in  future. 

I  have,  however,  rather  inferred  from  the  course  this  question 


MY  VISIT  TO  AMERICA.  141 

has  had  in  your  mind  since  your  return  to  Charleston  that,  in  point 
of  fact,  it  would  seem  to  you  to  be  duty  to  spend  the  residue  of  your 
life  in  missionary  labors  in  the  South.  I  can  hardly  tell  why  that 
impression  preponderated,  only  that  it  did;  nor  have  I  felt  the  least 
inclined  to  blame  you  or  to  think  less  favorably  of  you.  This,  no 
doubt,  has  restrained  my  pen  somewhat,  but  probably  not  much. 

My  avoiding  the  responsibility  of  positive  advice  is  habitual  with 
me.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  go  on  a  mission,  and  greater  to  take  a 
family  of  children  abroad ;  and  I  feel  that  nothing  but  a  man's  own 
spontaneous  convictions  of  duty  will  justify  his  going. 

I  should  certainly  rejoice,  as  all  the  brethren  of  your  mission  of 
course  would,  if  you  saw  your  duty  to  return  clear,  and  should  act 
upon  that  conviction;  and  if  it  were  necessary  to  show  the  sincerity 
of  my  desire  for  this  result,  by  arguing  in  favor  of  your  so  doing, 
I  would  fill  a  sheet  with  arguments.  But  I  can  say  nothing  which 
you  do  not  already  know  better  than  I  do,  and  I  cannot  bring  my- 
self to  write  arguments  merely  to  show  my  sincerity.  You  know 
we  are  in  the  crisis  of  our  work  amongst  the  Armenians,  and  that 
there  are  hundreds,  if  not  thousands,  of  Armenians  scattered  over 
Turkey,  who  are  inquiring  what  they  shall  do  to  be  saved,  but  have 
not  yet  been  brought  to  take  a  stand  on  the  Lord's  side;  and  that, 
in  order  to  this,  we  must,  in  the  shortest  possible  time,  fill  the 
country  with  competent  evangelists  and  books.  But  I  am  arguing, 
and  I  stop. 

Do  that  which  you  regard  as  right,  my  dear  brother,  whether  it 
be  to  go  or  stay.     I  shall  not  distrust  your  integrity  in  any  event. 
With  affectionate  regards  to  Mrs.  Adger,  as  ever,  most  truly  yours, 
(Signed)  Rtjfus  Anderson, 

Secretary  of  A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 

The  impression  made  on  my  mind  by  this  letter  was 
not  pleasant.  I  had  not  asked  for  ''positive  advice,"  much 
less  Q-fficial  advice,  or  for  his  taking  the  responsibility  of 
deciding  the  question  for  me.  I  had,  in  my  letter  to  him, 
expressly  disclaimed  the  wish  for  anything  of  this  kind. 
I  had  written  to  him  as  an  intimate  friend,  for  ''brotherly 
advice  and  counsel,"  expecting  him  to  say  something  or 
other  in  some  one  of  his  letters  indicating  some  desire  for 
the  continuation  of  my  relations  to  the  foreign  missionary 
work.  ISTot  once  had  he  ever  reminded  me,  until  I  had 
dragged  it  out  of  him,  that  "there  was  a  crisis  in  the  Ar- 
menian work,"  and  that  it  was  necessary,  "in  the  shortest 
possible  time,  to  fill  the  country  with  competent  evangel- 
ists and  books,"    It  was  rather  unpleasant  for  Dr.  Ander- 


142  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

son  to  imply  that  I  had  wanted  him  to  fill  a  sheet,  or  even 
a  paragraph,  with  arguments  for  m}^  retnrn. 

But  there  was  a  portion  of  this  letter  that  was  even 
painful  to  me.  It  was  where  Dr.  Anderson  professed  so 
decidedly  that  he  had  not  given  a  thought  to  my  "ever  be- 
coming so  related  to  slavery  as  to  occasion  us  any  trouble," 
and  that  he  was  not  called  on  "to  spend  time  in  imagining 
what  troubles  you  might  be  the  occasion  of  in  future." 

This  correspondence  is  almost  fifty  years  old,  and,  as 
I  read  it  over  to-day,  I  am  able  to  realize  that  Dr.  Ander- 
son had  been  thinking  of  so  many  and  such  great  matters, 
since  the  day  that  we  walked  and  talked  together  about 
my  relationship  to  slaveholding,  that  he  had  quite  for- 
gotten the  earnest  words  he  spoke  that  day,  the  anxious 
wishes  he  had  expressed,  that  I  could  be  freed  from  that 
relationship,  and  the  very  impressive  history  he  had  given 
me  of  the  trouble  and  injury  which  John  Leighton  Wil- 
son's case  had  occasioned  the  Board,  and  how  he  foretold 
the  probability  of  my  case  having  the  same  eifects.  But, 
at  the  time  of  my  receiving  and  reading  this  letter,  that 
charitable  supposition  did  not  occur  to  me,  and,  as  I  am 
writing  a  history  of  what  took  place,  I  am  bound  to  tell 
just  how  the  letter  operated  on  my  feelings  and  conduct. 
I  saw  plainly  the  inconsistency.  I  could  not  resist  the 
impression  that  there  was  insincerity.  I  was  led  to  sus- 
pect that  from  the  time  we  had  walked  and  talked  about 
this  matter.  Dr.  Anderson  had  been  resolved  to  make  it 
very  easy  for  me  to  dissolve  my  connection  with  the  Amer- 
ican Board.  I  was  not  willing  to  become  another  incum- 
brance in  the  way  of  that  honored  Board.  They  should 
not  have  to  defend  me,  as  they  had  to  defend  John  T^eigh- 
ton  Wilson.  I  would  make  it  easy  for  them  to  be  rid  of 
the  second  slaveholder. 

Accordingly,  on  the  19th  of  April,  I  wrote  my  resigna- 
tion, but  delayed  sending  it  for  some  days,  that  I  might 
receive  letters  that  I  was  expecting  from  my  brethren  in 
Smyrna  and  Constantinople.  Having  received  and  con- 
sidered these,  I  forwarded  my  resignation  on  the  19th  of 
May,  and  it  was  accepted.  I  said  to  the  Secretary,  "It  is 
needless  for  me  to  go  into  any  detail  of  the  reasons  which 
have  led  me  to  this  determination.     They  may  be  summed 


MY  KETUKN  NOT  ALLOWED.  143 

up  in  one  statement — I  feel  that  I  am  called,  in  the  provi-    ■> 
denee  of  God,  to  give  myself  to  the  work  of  preaching  the   „, 
gospel  to  the  blacks."     Referring  to  the  twelve  happy  ^ 
years  I  had  spent  in  the  mission,  and  the  many  tender  ties 
which  I  was  rupturing,  I  remarked  that  the  state  of  my 
eyesight  would  have  required  me,  had  I  been  able  to  re- 
turn, to  be  transferred  to  some  other  department  of  the 
work,  that  I  was  very  loath  to  quit  that  work,  and  that 
I  would  gladly  go  back  and  spend  the  residue  of  my  days 
with  the  Armenians.     Then,  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  to  himself,  as  also  his  colleagues  at  the  mis- 
sionary house,  I  bade  a  respectful  and  affectionate  fare- 
well. 

It  did  not  appear  to  me  needful  or  suitable  that,  in  this 
official  communication  to  the  Board,  I  should  refer  to 
what  had  passed  between  me  and  Dr.  Anderson.  And 
here  I  must  mention  the  somewhat  remarkable  fact,  that, 
whereas  some  ten  years  before  this,  there  were  at  least  a 
dozen  Southern  missionaries  connected  with  this  Board, 
yet,  in  the  providence  of  God,  one  way  or  another,  every 
one  of  them  was  brought  home  either  before  or  soon  after 
my  resignation,  John  Leighton  Wilson  being,  perhaps, 
the  very  last  one. 

Thus  ended  my  twelve  and  a  half  years  of  personal  ser-  f 
vice  in  the  foreign  missionary  work.     It  had  been  a  very  -^ 
happy  life,  both  to  me  and  to  my  wife,  who  shed  more 
tears  when  it  was  decided  that  we  could  not  go  back  than 
she  had  wept  when  we  first  set  forth,  leaving  all  that  was 
dear  behind. 

Here  let  me  record  my  testimony  to  the  exalted  char- 
acter and  genuine  nobility  of  the  missionaries  with  whom 
I  was  associated.  Let  me  also  state,  as  to  their  families, 
that,  notwithstanding  many  severe  trials  encountered  by 
them,  still,  it  seemed  to  me,  they  were,  on  the  whole,  the 
happiest  set  with  which  I  have  ever  been  acquainted. 
Foreign  missionary  life,  as  I  saw  it,  was  certainly  calcu- 
lated to  be  a  happy  one.  It  was  a  life  of  a  very  simple 
faith.  The  missionary  had  only  an  economical  support, 
could  lay  up  nothing  for  the  future,  and  trusted  his  wife 
and  children  after  him  to  the  good  providence  of  his  Mas- 
ter.    Then  the  conduct  of  the  missionary's  life  also  was 


144  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

very  simple.  He  did  not  have  to  be  mucli  conformed  to 
the  world  around  him.  In  fact,  the  very  object  of  his 
mission  was  to  effect  a  change  in  the  character,  life  and 
manners  of  the  people  to  whom  he  came.  The  minister  at 
home,  in  some  things,  must  carefully  conform  to  his  con- 
gregation, for  many  of  their  ideas  and  customs  are  good 
and  right.  With  the  foreign  missionary,  it  is  different. 
He  must  set  himself  in  opposition  to  their  most  cherished 
ideas  and  their  most  settled  habits  of  life.  While  he  en- 
deavors to  give  no  offence,  yet  he  must  not  seek  to  "please 
men,"  or  he  "cannot  be  the  servant  of  Christ."  The  for- 
eign missionary  life  is  calculated  to  make  a  man  feel  that 
he  is  a  stranger  and  a  pilgrim  in  the  world.  And  then,  if 
his  work  is  prosperous,  as  ours  was,  there  is  much  to  rouse 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  missionary.  I  would  like  to  have 
spent  my  life  in  that  work.  I  do  not  know  any  man  whose 
career  is  more  to  be  admired  than  that  of  my  friend  and 
colleague.  Dr.  Elias  Riggs,  of  Constantinople.  He  has 
spent  his  whole  ministerial  life  of  sixty-four  years  in  the 
Levant,  first  in  the  Greek  work,  then  in  the  Armenian 
and  Bulgarian.  A  man  of  the  rarest  linguistic  ability, 
mastering  first  the  modern  Greek,  in  which  he  preached 
like  a  native,  he  has  spent  many  subsequent  years  in 
translating,  or  revising  the  whole  Scriptures  into  Arme- 
nian, and,  finally,  Bulgarian.  His  wife,  after  many 
years  of  service,  lies  buried  in  that  land.  Their  children 
after  them  are,  with  the  exception  of  one,  a  professor  in 
the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church, 
l^ew  Brunswick,  ]^.  J.,  following  in  their  parents'  foot- 
steps. One,  who  became  blind  from  scarlet  fever,  in  very 
early  childhood,  got  his  education  in  America,  and  has 
served  for  years  as  a  very  useful  professor  in  a  mission- 
ary college  at  Aintab,  near  to  the  ancient  Cilicia  and  Tar- 
sus, where  the  Apostle  Paul  was  born  and  reared.  All 
Dr.  Riggs'  children,  sons  and  daughters,  are  missionaries, 
and  now,  towards  the  end  of  his  eighty-sixth  year,  he  is 
still  working,  waiting,  and  watching  for  the  Master. 
What  a  splendid  course  this  man  has  run !  Where  is  the 
minister  in  America  who  has  lived  sixty-four  years  of 
more  useful  life?  But,  alas!  in  this  year  of  1896,  in 
this  month  of  September,  it  does  seem  as  if  he,  and  all  his 


MY  KETUKN  NOT  ALLOWED,  145 

children,  are  in  great  danger  of  being  massacred  hj  the 
Turks.  Very  well ;  if  that  turns  out  to  be  so,  there  will 
just  be  so  many  added  to  the  "noble  army  of  martyrs," 
whom  we  honor  so  much,  along  with  "the  glorious  com- 
pany of  the  apostles"  and  "the  goodly  fellowship  of  the 
prophets." 

My  connection  with  the  American  Board  was  now 
brought  to  a  close,  not  from  any  purpose  or  wish  of  mine, 
but  directly  and  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  ignorant 
"Kew  England  fanaticism,  and  unscriptural  and  unchris- 
tian prejudice  against  slaveholders.  Of  course,  it  all 
came  to  pass  in  the  wise  providence  of  God.  The  time 
had  come  for  me  to  return  to  my  own  people,  who  were 
suffering  the  unjust  reproaches,  both  of  the  ISTorth  and  of 
Great  Britain,  and  henceforth  I  was  to  cast  in  my  lot 
with  them,  and  bear  my  share  of  all  the  future  would 
bring  forth.  There  was  a  great  work,  too  long  neglected, 
in  Charleston,  and  a  small  beginning  of  it  was  now  to  be 
commenced.  With  other  hands  than  mine,  and  by  the 
magic  of  another  voice,  namely,  that  of  John  Lafayette 
Girardeau,  it  was  subsequently  to  grow  apace.  Great 
events  were  about  to  occur.  A  certain  mighty  prejudice 
in  Charleston  was  to  be  overthrown,  and  Christian  mas- 
ters there  and  elsewhere  were  to  put  forth  more  direct 
efforts  for  the  religious  instruction  and  eternal  salvation 
of  their  slaves.  There  was  to  be  a  dreadful  war,  and 
slavery  was  to  come  to  an  end.  Charleston,  where  the 
war  began,  was  to  continue  one  of  its  chief  centres  to  its 
close,  and  the  feeble  commencement  of  negro  separate 
religious  education  directly  by  white  men,  was  to  create 
and  foster  a  strong  Christian  affection  between  blacks 
and  whites,  and  this  was  to  prove  eminently  propitious  to 
our  beleaguered  city  during  all  the  dangers  of  the  war. 
To  myself,  personally,  another  and  very  acceptable  re- 
sult was  to  come.  My  eyes,  so  weary  with  the  trying  work 
of  Armenian  reading,  writing,  and  proof  reading,  were  to 
have  comparative  rest. 

»  But  the  American  Board's  troubles  about  slavery  and 
slaveholders  were  not  yet  to  come  to  an  end.  John  Leigh- 
ton  Wilson's  case  had  indeed  (as  Dr.  Anderson  told  me  on 
that  walk  to  Roxbury)  given  them  immense  trouble,  but 


146  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

that  was  nothing  compared  with  what  was  to  follow.  The 
first  public  organized  effort  that  I  know  of,  on  the  part  of 
the  abolitionists,  to  bring  the  Board  over  to  their  ground, 
was  made  in  1840,  at  their  annual  meeting,  held  in  Prov- 
idence, Ehode  Island.  It  came  in  the  form  of  a  memorial, 
remonstrating  against  the  Board's  accepting  money  from 
slaveholders.  In  answer  to  this  memorial,  the  Board  ac- 
knowledged the  justice  of  the  ground  which  it  took,  that 
God  will  not  accept  the  fruits  of  robbery  for  sacrifice,  but 
pleaded  the  practical  difficulty  there  was  in  discriminat- 
ing between  the  various  persons  at  the  South  who  were 
contributing  to  its  treasury.  This  was  enough  for  the 
abolitionists ;  it  gave  them  an  entering  wedge  in  the 
Board's  acknowledgment  that,  on  the  whole,  their  prin- 
ciples and  reasonings  were  correct.  Thus,  after  thirty 
years'  receipt  and  use  of  the  money  of  slaveholders,  and 
after  all  the  foundations  of  the  Board  had  been  laid  in 
blood  and  sin,  it  began  to  be  determined  that  no  more  of 
such  material  should  be  employed  in  the  superstructure. 

Of  course,  next  year  at  Philadelphia,  the  abolitionists 
renew  their  onset.  Their  claim  now  is  that  the  Board 
must  break  their  studied  silence  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  show  their  sympathy  with  those  Christians  who  abhor 
that  system  of  abominations,  and  it  is  hinted  that  other- 
wise their  income  must  be  diminished.  The  Board's  an- 
swer was  that  it  had  been  organized  simply  to  propagate 
the  gospel  amongst  the  heathen,  and  that  this  work  would 
be  enough  for  angels.  But  they  went  on  to  add  that  this 
Board  could  sustain  no  relation  to  slavery  which  implied 
approbation  of  it,  or  connection  or  sympathy  with  it. 

Again,  in  1842,  there  are  more  memorials,  as  also  in 
1844,  and  in  that  year  occurs  the  first  reference,  on  the 
part  of  the  disaffected,  to  the  holding  of  slaves  by  the 
Choctaw  Indians,  amongst  whom  the  Board  had  long  had 
a  flourishing  mission.  This  was  a  new  point  of  attack, 
and  the  Board  promised  to  look  into  the  matter  and  give 
answer  at  their  next  annual  meeting. 

In  1845  at  Brooklyn,  the  Board  were  outspoken  against 
the  wickedness  of  the  system  of  slavery.  But  they  set 
forth,  as  amongst  their  fundamental  principles,  that 
church  membership  cannot  be  refused  to  any  persons  Avho 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  147 

give  evidence  of  repentance  and  faith,  and  also  that  the 
missionaries,  in  connection  with  the  churches  they  have 
gathered,  are  the  only  rightful  judges  of  this  evidence. 
But,  so  far  have  the  Board  succumbed  to  the  rising  power 
of  this  tyrant  fanaticism,  that  this  year  they  write  to  the 
Choctaw  missionaries  that  they  should  train  their  church 
members  to  the  duty  of  emancipating  their  slaves. 

We  recall  to  mind  just  here  that  it  was  this  same  year 
(1845),  about  four  months  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the 
Board,  that  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  Old  School,  meeting  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  while 
they  condemned  what  no  good  man  at  the  South,  no  Chris- 
tian slaveholder,  will  approve,  viz.,  the  evils  that  are  in- 
cidentally connected  with  the  system  of  slavery,  as  with 
all  human  institutions  and  relationships,  such  as  parent 
and  child,  husband  and  wife,  did  yet  declare  to  the  same 
effect  with  these  two  fundamental  principles,  adopted  by 
the  American  Board,  that  "the  church  of  Christ  is  a 
spiritual  body,  whose  jurisdiction  extends  only  to  the 
religious  faith  and  moral  conduct  of  her  members,  and 
that  she  cannot  legislate  when  Christ  has  not  legislated, 
nor  make  terms  of  membership  which  he  has  not  made." 
They  added  that  they  could  not  "denounce  the  holding  of 
slaves  as  necessarily  a  heinous  and  scandalous  sin,  calcu- 
lated to  bring  upon  the  church  the  curse  of  God,  without 
charging  the  apostles  of  Christ  with  conniving  at  such 
sin,  and  introducing  into  the  church  such  sinners." 
Standing  firm  on  this  Scriptural  ground,  this  church  has 
ever  since  enjoyed  peace  and  quiet  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  while,  at  the  same  time,  through  her  ministers 
and  churches  at  the  South,  she  has  been  humbly  endeavor- 
ing to  preach  the  gospel  to  both  bond  and  free. 

In  1846  the  subject  of  slavery  was  hardly  introduced  at 
the  Board's  annual  meeting.  Perhaps  there  had  come  to 
pass  a  lull  in  the  abolitionist  war,  and  this  being  the  very 
year  of  my  return  home,  perhaps  I  might  thus  account 
for  Dr.  Anderson's  seeming,  in  his  correspondence  with 
me,  to  have  forgotten  the  great  anxiety  he  had  expressed 
to  me  at  Roxbury,  respecting  all  the  trouble  my  slave- 
holding  was  about  to  bring  upon  the  Board. 

However,  be  this  as  it  may,  the  war  was  renewed,  and 


148  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

in  great  vigor,  at  the  very  next  meeting,  viz.,  in  1847.  It 
was  felt  that  the  missionaries  in  the  Indian  country  had 
not  given  proper  heed  to  the  instructions  about  emancipa- 
tion, and  that  a  secretary  must  be  sent  out  to  investigate 
the  matter  of  slavery  among  the  Choctaws,  and  there 
having  occurred  two  vacancies  among  the  secretaries, 
these  are  filled  with  two  new  ones,  both  of  them  decided 
abolitionists,  viz.,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Treat  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Pomeroy.  It  soon  became  manifest  what  would  be  the 
effects  of  this  election. 

At  the  next  annual  meeting,  Boston,  1848,  Secretary 
Treat,  who  had  been  sent  to  the  Choctaws,  made  his  re- 
port, and  then^  in  the  name  of  the  committee,  wrote  his 
famous  letter  to  the  missionaries.  Mr.  Treat's  letter 
takes  the  ground  that  "the  system  of  slavery  is  always  and 
everywhere  sinful,"  and  that  "all  slaveholding  is  sinful, 
too,  except  where  it  is  involuntary,  or  continued  solely  for 
the  benefit  of  the  slave."  The  missionary  must  denounce 
it,  "but  discreetly."  ISTo  slaveholder  may  sit  at  the  Lord's 
table,  until  he  proves  that  he  is  free  from  all  this  guilt. 
The  missionary  must  also  abstain  from  the  use  of  all  slave 
labor  in  any  form  whatever.  And  their  support  may  be 
withheld  if  they  disobey  these  instructions. 

This  monstrous  production  was  reviewed  by  Dr.  Hodge 
in  liisBihlical  Repertory  for  January,  1849.  The  reviewer 
described  the  letter  as  unexceptionable  in  manner,  couched 
in  the  blandest  terms,  yet  archiopiscopal  in  its  tone 
and  written  just  as  the  "Servant  of  Servants  at  Rome"  is 
wont  to  write.  He  also  points  out  how  preposterous  were 
the  claims  of  the  committee  to  the  control  over  mission- 
aries and  missionary  churches.  He  dwells  on  the  posi- 
tion taken  against  the  use  of  slave  labor  in  all  the  domes- 
tic and  farming  operations  of  the  mission.  Thoir  poor 
sickly  wives  must  not  hire  a  slave  to  cook  or  wash  for  their 
large  boarding  schools,  lest  the  system  of  slavery  be 
thereby  encouraged.  And  yet  the  whole  Xorth  and  the 
committee,  doubtless,  likewise  were  daily  using  the 
products  of  slave  labor.  This,  said  the  reviewer,  was 
straining  at  a  gnat  and  swallowing  a  camel ;  it  is  being 
dreadfully  troubled  with  the  mote  in  our  brother's  eye, 
but  quite  indifferent  to  the  beam  in  our  o^vn — it  was  a 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  149 

carping  at  trifles  in  the  laborious,  devoted  men  in  the 
wilderness,  but  blind  to  tenfold  greater  evils  in  the  pam- 
pered churches  at  home. 

The  effect  of  Dr.  Hodge's  review  was  sensibly  felt  at 
the  missionary  rooms,  Boston.  Immediately  on  its  ap- 
pearance, the  Secretaries,  over  their  o^vn  names,  send 
forth  a  disclaimer.  There  was  nothing  authoritative  in 
the  committee's  correspondence  with  the  Choctaw  nation. 
The  committee  were  only  discussing  with  the  missionaries 
certain  important  questions. 

It  was  at  this  time  I  addressed  a  letter  to  Dr.  Anderson, 
a  copy  of  which  lies  before  me.  It  was  dated  January  15, 
1819,  following  their  meeting  in  October,  1848.  I  said, 
"Be  not  offended  if,  with  the  freedom  of  an  old  friend  of 
yours  and  a  former  missionary,  and  still  an  honorary 
member  of  the  Board,  I  repeat  here  my  remark  made  to 
you  in  Syria,  that  you  are  yielding  to  the  abolitionists ! 
They  are  changing  public  sentiment,  and  you  must  speak 
somewhat  in  their  language,  or  you  are  crippled.  The 
pressure  is  tremendous.  It  seems,  moreover,  hard  that 
you,  who  have,  as  you  say,  nothing  directly  to  do  with 
Southern  slavery,  should  be  made  to  share  any  part  of 
the  burden  of  JSTorthern  popular  odium,  which  is  cast  on 
us  of  the  South.  .  .  .  We,  at  the  South,  are  standing 
on  the  Bible  ground,  and  those  who  force  you  to  speak 
out  against  us  are  standing  on  ground  which  they  think 
higher  than  the  Bible !  That  we  must  sustain  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  against  the  mad  and  wild  interference  of 
people  outside  our  borders,  is  plain  to  me,  even  as  a 
friend  to  the  negro.  Whether  you  ought  to  give  up  your 
o^\Ti  position  and  be  forced  into  the  new  position  of  a  lever 
to  act  on  us,  you  must  and  you  will,  doubtless,  decide  for 
yourselves.  But,  in  my  view,  there  is  no  higher  calling 
for  the  American  citizen,  as  a  citizen,  than  to  stand  in  the 
breach  with  even  a  few,  and  contend  for  sound  and  just 
principles  against  the  fury  of  the  populace." 

In  1849, 'l850,  1851,  1852  nothing  worthy  of  note,  in 
respect  to  this  matter,  occurs  at  the  meetings  of  the 
Board,  except  that  in  1852  it  fell  to  the  lot  of  this  same 
Mr.  Treat  to  bring  in  a  report  on  the  success  of  the  Indian 
missions.     And  it  was  indeed  a  glowing  report  of  the 


150  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

growing  temperance,  improving  agriculture,  advancing 
education,  excellent  government  and  constant,  prayerful, 
intelligent  and  zealous  piety  of  these  same  slaveholding 
Clioctaws.  As  to  the  churches,  he  says,  "When  we  enter 
their  churches,  Ave  feel  that  the  Lord,  in  very  deed,  is  in 
the  midst  of  them." 

In  1852,  then,  the  Choctaw  churches  are  not  very  great 
sinners,  albeit  fully  tolerating  in  their  communion  a  sys- 
tem pronounced  in  1849  to  be  "alwavs  and  everywhere 
sinful." 

In  the  annual  meeting  in  1853  another  very  fine  report 
of  progress  among  the  Clioctaws  is  read  by  this  Mr.  Treat. 
There  is  evidently  a  desire  to  have  the  action  of  1848  pass 
into  oblivion.  But  this  may  not  be.  At  Hartford,  Conn., 
in  1854,  up  comes  the  Choctaw  question  again,  under  the 
full  blast  of  the  well-known  excitement  about  the  admis- 
sion of  Kansas  as  a  free  State,  which  so  stirred  the  whole 
United  States.  There  had  also  been  legislation  by  the 
Clioctaws  against  any  citizens  of  the  United  States  inter- 
fering with  the  rights  of  slaveholders.  This  legislation 
was  provoked,  it  would  seem,  by  the  visit  and  letter  of 
Mr.  Treat,  and  especially  by  a  suggestion  that  had  been 
made  to  the  mission,  to  seek  release  from  their  contract 
with  the  Choctaw  nation  about  their  boarding  schools. 
The  Choctaw  legislation  was  very  offensive  to  the  aboli- 
tionists in  that  meeting  of  the  Board.  Accordingly,  the 
Treat  letter  was  fully  endorsed,  the  Senior  Secretary 
being  absent  from  this  meeting,  on  his  official  visitation 
to  the  missions  of  the  Board  in  the  East  Indies. 

Friends  of  the  Board  in  I^ew  York  were  protesting 
now  against  some  of  these  proceedings.  Consequently, 
the  Rev.  George  W.  Wood,  of  the  Constantinople  mission, 
(an  acting  secretary  at  the  time,  during  Dr.  Anderson's 
absence)  was  sent  out  to  the  Choctaw  country,  to  arrange 
a  new  platform.  I  knew  Mr.  Wood  well,  and  loved  him 
much.  We  had  been  colleagues  together  for  years  in  the 
Armenian  mission.  He  had  so  much  genuine  kindness  of 
heart,  and  so  much  gentleness  of  manner,  and  was  withal 
so  clear  and  discriminating  in  his  mental  powers,  that  not 
one  man  in  ten  thousand  was  fitted  like  him  for  such  an 
embassy,  albeit  his  proceedings  in  this  case  did  not  fully 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  151 

comport  with  the  character  I  had  formed  of  my  brother. 
The  platform  which  he  drew  up  was  fully  pervaded  with 
the  principles  of  abolition.  It  is  simply  amazing  how 
such  men  as  those  missionaries  are  known  to  have  been, 
were  induced  to  sign  it,  for  that  Goodwater  platform  did 
not  consist  with  what  they  had  previously  held.  But  no 
sooner  did  this  platform,  with  Mr.  Wood's  comments, 
appear  in  the  New  York  Observer,  than  the  missionaries 
immediately  forwarded  to  the  Secretaries  and  committee 
their  protest  against  the  whole  report. 

In  October,  1855,  the  Board  meets  at  Utica,  jST.  Y. 
The  Senior  Secretary,  Dr.  Anderson,  was  still  in  India. 
The  other  two  Secretaries  were  both  present.  There  is 
good  reason  to  believe  they  had  the  missionaries'  protest 
in  their  pocket.  Yet  the  whole  case  before  the  Board  is 
settled  on  the  basis  of  the  Goodwater  platform,  with  no 
allusion  to  the  protest.  The  missionaries  are  so  aggrieved 
when  these  tidings  reach  them  that  they,  or  some  of  them, 
send  on  their  resignation.  J^o  sooner  had  the  Senior  Sec- 
retary returned  than  he  showed  himself  anxious  to  have 
the  missionaries  withdraw  their  resignation.  The  com- 
mittee, accordingly,  propose  this  to  the  missionaries. 
These  consent,  on  condition  that  the  Treat  letter  and  all 
the  previous  legislation  of  the  Board  about  slavery,  be 
considered  as  withdrawn,  and  the  missionaries  be  allowed 
to  go  on  in  their  work,  "according  to  the  instructions  of 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles."  The  proposition  of  the  mis- 
sionaries was  not  accepted ;  yet,  with  these  terms  as  de- 
manded by  the  missionaries  lying  before  them,  the  com- 
mittee voted,  for  the  ensuing  year,  the  usual  annual  ap- 
propriation for  the  Choctaw  mission,  and  continued  to  do 
the  same  until  the  year  1859. 

At  the  annual  meeting  in  1856,  which  occurred  at  New- 
ark, the  Board,  now  guided  by  the  Senior  Secretary, 
seeks  to  set  itself  right  by  renewing  the  Brooklyn  plat- 
form, where  it  was  declared  that  the  Board  has  no  ecclesi- 
astical power  and  no  control  over  the  missionary  churches, 
and  remitting  to  the  missionaries  and  their  churches  all 
questions  of  internal  discipline  as  belonging  rightfully  to 
them  alone. 

In  1857  the  Board  express  themselves  in  the  strongest 


152  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

terms  as  to  the  high  character  and  good  conduct  of  the 
Choctaw  missionaries,  and  the  Prudential  Committee's 
report  tells  how  their  stations  had  received  decisive  marks 
of  divine  favor.  This  report  closes  with  the  expression  of 
the  hope  "that  he  who  keepeth  covenant  and  sheweth 
mercy  will  not  forsake  this  interesting  people."  Where 
is,  meanwhile,  the  resignation  of  the  missionaries  'i  It  is 
sleeping  and  taking  its  rest.  The  committee's  conscience 
will  not,  at  this  time,  suffer  them  to  accept  it ;  they  have 
before  them  the  fear  of  the  Covenant-Keeper,  who  has 
not  forsaken  and  will  not  forsake  the  poor  Choctaw 
churches.  On  the  other  hand^  however,  the  fear  of  the 
abolitionists  is  also  before  the  committee's  eyes,  and  they 
dare  not  refuse  to  accept  this  resignation.  It  must  rest 
for  awhile,  till  the  committee  can  see  the  path  of  duty  and 
of  safety  more  plain  and  clear  before  their  eyes. 

But  in  the  annual  meeting,  September,  1858,  the  Board 
finds  its  way  out  of  the  difficulty  by  the  aid  of  Dr.  Leo- 
nard Bacon,  of  Connecticut.  He  is  appointed  chairman 
of  the  sub-committee,  on  that  part  of  the  Board's  annual 
report  which  relates  to  the  Choctaw  missionaries.  In  his 
report  he  speaks  of  certain  religious  bodies  in  the  States 
nearest  the  Choctaws,  among  whom  there  has  been  a 
"lamentable  defection  from  some  of  the  first  and  most 
elementary  ideas  of  Christian  morality,  insomuch  that 
Christianity  has  been  represented  as  the  warrant  for  a 
system  of  slavery  which  offends  the  moral  sense  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  Christ  has  thereby  been  represented 
as  the  Minister  of  Sin."  The  report  also  refers  to  the  fact 
that  "our  brethren  among  the  Choctaws  are  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal connection  with  these  religious  bodies,  and  that  from 
those  States  the  leading  Choctaws  are  deriving  their  no- 
tions of  civilization  and  of  government."  The  report 
concludes  with  the  expression  of  a  hope  that  the  "Board 
might  be  relieved  as  early  as  possible  from  the  unceasing 
embarrassments  and  perplexities  connected  with  the  mis- 
sions in  the  Indian  Territory."  This  report  was  adopted 
unanimously. 

Thus  the  Board  has  at  length  been  driven  to  the  reso- 
lution of  withdrawing  its  support  from  the  Choctaw  mis- 
sionaries and  their  churches,  and  that  as  soon  as  possible. 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  153 

But  how  is  this  to  be  done  ?  With  the  prompt  decision 
and  bold,  open,  Christian  frankness  of  men  who  believe 
what  they  say,  namely,  that  these  missionaries  and 
churches  are  chargeable  with  a  ''lamentable  defection 
from  some  of  the  most  elementary  ideas  of  Christian 
morality,"  and  so  have  made  Christianity  the  warrant  for 
the  '"sum  of  all  villainies,"  ''and  Christ  the  Minister  of 
Sin"  ?  Oh  !  no.  ISot  so  does  the  committee  express  itself, 
but  another  correspondence  is  to  be  opened  with  the  mis- 
sionaries, and  it  is  again  Mr.  Treat,  who  is  to  write  to 
these  abandoned  sinners.  I  subjoin  his  letter,  with  the 
reply  of  the  missionaries.  Let  the  reader  notice  with  care, 
not  only  the  fraternal  kindness  expressed  in  this  letter  for 
the  missionaries,  but  also  the  cordial  and  friendly  senti- 
ments entertained  for  the  corrupt  Choctaw  churches.  Let 
him  also  notice  the  grounds  on  which  the  committee  pro- 
pose to  base  the  separation,  viz.,  "To  free  themselves  from 
embarrassment  and  their  treasury  from  loss."  Still  fur- 
ther, let  him  notice  the  reference  to  the  "political  agita- 
tions which  are  likely  to  take  place  in  coming  years."  The 
separation  was  to  be  effected  in  1859,  and  the  war  of  the 
States  was  to  begin  in  1861. 

Letter  of  Mr.  Secretary  Treat. 

Missionary  House,  Boston,  October  5,  1858. 
To  THE  Choctaw  Mission. 

Deak  Brethren:  The  proceedings  of  the  board  at  its  recent 
meeting  are  already  in  your  hands.  You  will  have  read  with  special 
attention  the  report  of  the  committee  on  that  part  of  the  annual 
report  which  relates  to  your  mission.  This  paper,  you  will  remem- 
ber, has  the  following  sentence,  "It  seems  to  your  committee  de- 
sirable that  the  board  should  be  relieved,  as  early  as  possible,  from 
the  increasing  embarrassments  and  perplexities  connected  with  the 
missions  in  the  Indian  Territory."  The  Prudential  Committee,  con- 
curring in  this  opinion  for  various  reasons,  respectfully  submit  for 
your  consideration,  whether,  in  existing  circumstances,  it  be  not 
wise  and  expedient  that  your  connection  with  us  should  be  termi- 
nated. 

You  will  readily  believe  that  this  suggestion  is  made  witli  un- 
feigned regret.  We  have  always  felt  a  deep  interest  in  your  labors. 
For  the  churches  which  you  have  gathered,  we  entertain  the  most 
cordial  and  friendly  sentiments.     For  yourselves  we  have  a  strong 


154  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

fraternal  feeling.  For  the  older  brethren,  especially,  we  must  ever 
cherish  the  tenderest  afl'ection.  It  is  with  emotions  of  sadness, 
therefore,  that  we  contemplate  a  separation  from  you. 

We  are  not  able,  however,  to  call  in  question  the  facts  on  which 
the  committee  at  Detroit  founded  their  opinion.  We  find  in  our 
churches  an  increasing  desire  that  the  board  may  be  freed  from 
the  embarrassments  above  referred  to.  By  reason  thereof,  it  is 
said,  the  donations  to  the  treasury  are  less  than  they  would  other- 
wise be,  to  the  manifest  injury  of  our  churches,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  our  missions  on  the  other.  It  is  said,  too,  that  the  political 
agitations,  which  are  likely  to  take  place  in  coming  years,  must  of 
necessity  aggravate  the  evil. 

The  report  to  which  your  attention  is  now  called,  refers  to  diffi- 
culties which  you  have  encountered  because  of  your  present  rela- 
tion. This  consideration  you  will  at  once  appreciate;  the  commit- 
tee have  no  occasion,  therefore,  to  enlarge  upon  it.  They  will  only 
add  that  these  difficvilties  will  be  likely  to  increase  hereafter. 

But  there  is  another  obstacle  to  our  future  cooperation  which  tho 
report,  already  mentioned,  did  not  notice.  The  Prudential  Com- 
mittee question  their  ability  to  keep  your  ranks  adequately  filled. 
When  tidings  came  to  us  a  few  days  ago  that  our  excellent  friend 
and  brother,  Mr.  Byington,  was  dangerously  sick,  an  inquiry  of 
painful  intere.st  arose,  "Who  can  take  his  place?"  We  had  no 
person  ready  to  occupy  such  a  post;  and,  in  view  of  our  past  ex- 
perience, we  could  hardly  expect  to  find  one. 

The  committee  do  not  propose  to  raise  any  question  as  to  the 
agreement  of  your  opinions  with  those  of  the  board.  In  any  view  of 
the  case  which  they  have  been  able  to  take,  the  result  would  be  the 
same.  The  measure  is  proposed  as  one  of  Christian  expediency; 
and  it  is  on  this  ground  that  we  present  it  for  your  consideration. 

We  have  said  that  this  communication  is  made  with  unfeigned 
regret.  But  our  sorrow  is  lessened  by  the  hope  that  the  interests 
of  the  people  among  whom  you  dwell  will  not  suffer.  We  have 
thought  it  probable  that  you  would  come  into  connection  with  that 
missionarj'^  board  under  which  two  of  your  number  formerly  labored 
— a  board  which  has  your  cordial  sympathy  and  your  entire  confi- 
dence. Its  missionaries  are  your  "fellow-workers  unto  the  kingdom 
of  God"  in  a  common  field.  This  would  facilitate  a  transfer  of 
your  relation.    Ecclesiastically,  you  would  make  no  change. 

Praying  that  the  God  of  missions  may  keep  you  henceforth,  and 
direct  all  your  labors,  so  that  the  comfort  and  joy  which  you  have 
hitherto  received  therein,  shall  be  forgotten  by  reason  of  the  more 
abundant  coming  of  the  Spirit  of  promise,  I  am. 

Very  respectfully  yours,  in  behalf  of  the  Prudential  Committee, 
S.  B.  Treat,  Secretary  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  31. 


what  followed.  155 

Eeply  of  the  Missionaries. 
Yakin  Okchaya,  Choctaw  Nation,  December  24,  1858. 
To  TJiE  Rev.  S.  B.  Treat,  Secretary  of  the  A.  B.  G.  F.  M. 

Dear  Brother:  We  have  received  your  kind  letter  in  behalf  of 
the  Prudential  Committee,  under  date  of  October  15th.  We  cor- 
dially reciprocate  to  yourself  and  the  committee  the  fraternal  feel- 
ings which  you  have  expressed  towards  us. 

You  refer  us  to  the  report  in  relation  to  our  mission  adopted  by 
the  board  at  Detroit,  and  especially  to  the  following  sentence,  "It 
seems  to  your  committee  desirable  that  the  board  should  be  relieved, 
as  early  as  possible,  from  the  unceasing  embarrassments  and  per- 
plexities connected  with  the  missions  in  the  Indian  Territory."  And 
you  add,  "The  Prudential  Committee,  concurring  in  this  opinion  for 
various  reasons,  respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration,  whether, 
in  existing  circumstances,  it  be  not  wise  and  expedient  that  your 
connection  with  us  should  be  terminated." 

You  do  not  mention  the  source  of  these  "embarrassments  and  per- 
plexities"; but  we  presume  they  arise  from  our  relation  to  slavery. 
Such  have  been  the  peace  and  quiet  amongst  us  on  this  subject  for 
the  past  two  years,  that  we  fondly  hoped  the  agitation  had  ceased, 
not  to  be  renewed  in  such  a  way  as  seriously  to  affect  us.  Hence  the 
action  of  the  board  at  Detroit  took  us  by  surprise. 

We  have  taken  into  prayerful  consideration  the  question  sub- 
mitted to  us  by  the  Priidential  Committee.  We  have  sought  for 
light  on  this  subject.  As  for  ourselves,  through  the  favor  of  a  kind 
providence,  we  see  nothing  in  our  present  circumstances  requiring 
a  separation.  Our  position  and  course  in  reference  to  slavery  are 
defined  in  our  letter  from  Lenox,  dated  September  6,  1856.  These, 
so  far  as  they  are  known  to  our  people,  meet  with  their  "cordial 
approbation";  we  are  therefore  going  forward  without  disturbance 
in  our  appropriate  work  as  missionaries.  Whether  circumstances 
may  not  hereafter  arise  which  will  render  a  separation  necessary, 
we  are,  of  course,  unable  to  say;  but  we  apprehend  no  such  diffi- 
culty from  the  Choctaw  people,  or  from  others  in  this  region. 

In  regard  to  our  course,  above  mentioned,  we  would  remark  that 
it  is  the  same  as  has  been  uniformly  preached  by  the  mission  from 
its  commencement  more  than  forty  years  ago.  It  had  the  full  ap- 
probation of  the  secretaries  and  the  Prudential  Committee  for  more 
than  five  and  twenty  years,  and  was  finally  approved  with  perfect 
unanimity  by  the  board  at  Brooklyn  in  1845.  However  great  may 
have  been  our  shortcomings  in  duty,  we  believe  this  our  course  to  be 
right  and  scriptural ;  and  we  cannot  believe  that  it  is  unwise  and 
inexpedient  for  the  board  to  sustain  us  in  what  is  scriptural  and 
right. 


156  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

In  your  letter  you  say,  "We  have  thought  it  probable  you  would 
come  into  connection  with  that  missionary  board  under  which  two 
of  your  number  formerly  labored."  That  board,  as  you  have  said, 
"has  our  cordial  sympathy  and  entire  confidence."  But  that  board 
is  the  organ  of  the  religious  bodies  in  the  adjoining  States,  "with 
which  we  are  in  ecclesiastical  relations";  and  the  various  religious 
bodies  in  these  States  are  charged,  in  the  report  adopted  by  the 
board  at  Detroit,  with  "a  lamentable  defection  from  some  of  the  first 
and  most  elementary  ideas  of  Christian  morality."  Is  not  this  an 
implied  censure  upon  us?  If  not,  is  there  not  an  inconsistency  in 
the  above  suggestion  of  the  Prudential  Committee?  We  have  no 
assurance  that,  under  these  circumstances,  that  board  would  con- 
sent to  a  transfer  of  the  mission  to  their  care. 

We  therefore  refer  the  question  back  to  the  Prudential  Commit- 
tee, to  be  disposed  of  as  they  shall  see  best.  We  regret  that  either 
the  board  or  the  churches  should  sustain  injury  on  our  account. 
We,  however,  do  not  think  that,  in  our  labors  as  missionaries,  we 
have  done  that  which,  by  the  gosj^el  standard,  can  be  regarded  as 
just  cause  of  offence. 

Be  assured  that  it  is  not  a  light  matter  with  us  to  differ  with  the 
Prudential  Committee  and  the  board  as  respects  the  question  which 
you  have  submitted  to  us.  In  our  opinion,  important  principles  are 
involved. 

We  trust  and  pray  that  tlie  great  Head  of  the  church  may  give 
wisdom  from  above,  that  wisdom  which  is  profitable  to  direct. 

Most  respectfully  yours,  in  behalf  of  the  Choctaw  Mission, 

C.  Kingsbury,  Chairman. 

C.  C.  CoPELAND,  Clerk. 

The  committee,  now  at  lengtli,  despair  of  either  forcing 
or  persuading  the  missionaries  in  any  respect  to  change 
their  ground,  either  as  to  their  work  among  the  Choctaws, 
or  as  to  their  relation  to  the  Board.  They  will  stand  just 
where  they  have  stood  for  forty  years,  and  the  changes 
shall  all  be  on  the  part  of  their  friends  in  Boston.  So  the 
Prudential  Committee,  beat  out  by  the  firmness  and  pru- 
dence of  these  simple-hearted  and  clear-headed  brethren 
in  the  wilderness,  resolve,  in  obedience  to  the  advice  of 
the  Board  in  1858,  to  discontinue  the  Choctaw  mission. 
Of  course,  Mr.  Treat  again  appears  upon  the  stage.  He 
it  is  who  must  frame  a  reply  to  that  remarkable  docu- 
ment of  C.  Kingsbury,  Chairman.  It  is  not  necessary  for 
me  to  copy  any  part  of  that  letter.  My  readers  know 
pretty  well  what  reply  he  will  attempt  to  make.     When 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  157 

the  Board  meets  in  Philadelpiiia  in  1859,  it  confirms  the 
act  of  the  committee,  and  so  the  affair  ends.  It  certainly 
was,  for  me,  a  kind  providence  which,  in  1846,  while  it 
relieved  the  Board  of  its  connection  with  a  slaveholding 
missionary,  relieved  me  from  my  connection  with  a  mis- 
sionary board,  which,  from  the  very  time  of  my  release, 
was  in  hot  water  do'svn  to  1859. 

Some  reader  of  this  chapter  may  be  disposed  to  ask 
why  was  my  course  so  different  from  that  of  the  Choctaw 
missionaries.  The  Prudential  Committee  proposed  to 
them  a  dissolution  of  their  connection  with  the  Board. 
The  missionaries  refer  back  the  question  to  the  Pruden- 
tial Committee  for  them  to  do  about  it  whatever  they 
thought  proper ;  but  I  decided  myself  to  withdraw  from 
the  Board  without  putting  the  responsibility  on  the  com- 
mittee. The  difference  in  the  two  cases  is  manifest.  In 
the  one  case,  a  missionary,  who  happened  to  be  a  slave-  n 
holder,  is  privately  informed  by  the  Secretary  that  his  -• 
continued  connection  with  the  Board  will  bring  great 
trouble  on  them.  The  way  is  made  open  for  him  to  retire,  '^' 
if  he  so  choose.  The  question  is  simply  between  the  Sec- 
retary and  him.  There  has  been  no  public  notice  taken 
of  his  being  connected  with  the  Board.  There  seems  also 
to  have  been  a  lull  in  the  abolitionists'  assault  upon  the 
Board.  If  the  missionary  chooses  to  retire,  he  does  not 
commit  himself  to  a  public  acceptance  or  adhesion  to  any 
false  principles  in  morals,  while  possibly  he  may  save  the 
Board  from  any  fresh  assault  about  slavery ;  so  he  sends 
in  his  resignation. 

The  other  case  comes  on  after  a  dozen  years  subsequent 
to  this  resignation,  when  the  American  Board  has  been 
led,  or  driven,  step  by  step,  to  take  the  extreme  position 
that  slavery  is  always  and  everywhere  sinful,  and  that 
their  Choctaw  missionaries  are  involved  in  the  guilt  of  it. 
Then  they  propose  to  these  missionaries  to  acknowledge 
that  on  this  ground  they  think  it  desirable  and  necessary 
that  their  connection  with  the  Board  should  cease.  The 
missionaries  refuse  to  fall  into  the  snare.  They  will  not 
assent  to  the  fanatical  and  unscriptural  principles  pub- 
licly set  forth.  They  throw  back  on  the  Prudential  Com- 
mittee the  necessity  of  doing  just  as  they  think  right  in 


158  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  premises.  It  has  raised  the  issue,  let  it  take  the  re- 
sponsibility before  the  Christian  public  of  cutting  them 
off  as  unworthy  of  support;  and  so  in  1859  they  are  cut 
off.* 

In  this  account  of  what  befell  the  American  Board 
from  1840  to  1859,  we  see  certain  leaders  in  New  Eng- 
land requiring  it  to  accept  their  views  of  slavery  and 
slaveholding.  But  the  Board  looks  at  these  questions  with 
different  eyes.  There  followed,  as  is  well  known,  severe 
and  increasingly  severe  condemnation  of  the  Board's 
opinions.  Then,  because  the  Board  will  not  yield  to  the 
judgment  of  these  leaders,  public  opinion  is  stirred  up 
against  it,  and  all  Christian  people  are  called  on  to  with- 
hold from  it  their  support.  The  result  is,  as  everybody 
knows,  that  the  resources  of  the  Board  are  very  much 
crippled.  Those  who  have  effected  this  result  are  con- 
scientiously religious  people,  but  the  consequences  are 
very  cruel.  They  extend  to  all  the  Board's  missions 
throughout  the  world.  They  involve  missionaries  and 
their  wives  and  children  who  never  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  '"sin  of  slavery."  It  is  starvation  for  these ;  it  is 
also  starvation  to  the  heathen.  The  Bread  of  Life  is  to  be 
withheld.  So  far  as  this  Board  is  concerned,  no  more 
missionaries  to  be  sent  forth  !  'No  more  Christian  schools 
to  be  established !  No  more  translations  of  the  Bible ! 
No  more  multiplication  of  copies  of  the  Word !  All  these 
consequences  from  difference  of  opinions !  The  Board 
shall  believe  what  we  believe,  or  we  will  ruin  its  business, 
and,  so  far  as  it  is  concerned,  leave  the  missionaries  and 
heathen  to  perish  together. 

Now,  I  have  an  object-lesson  to  set  before  those,  and 
the  like  of  those,  who,  merely  for  opinion's  sake,  had  thus 
destroyed  almost  one-half  the  resources  and  power  of  a 
magnificent  benevolent  society  in  the  prosecution  of  its 
work. 

When  American  missionaries  to  the  Armenians  began 
to  circulate  the  Scriptures  among  these  people  in  their 

*  In  Vol.  XII.,  pp.  736,  783  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Revieio 
I  published  a  more  full  critique  of  the  course  of  the  American  Board 
with  its  Choctaw  missionaries. 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  159 

modern  tongue,  earnest  souls  repaired  to  them  for  fuller 
instruction  in  the  gospel.  Soon  they  began  to  see  that 
the  creed  of  their  church  and  its  ceremonies  were  unscrip- 
tural  and  idolatrous.  They  could  not  any  more  worship 
the  Virgin  Mary  nor  the  other  saints.  They  would  no 
longer  confess  their  sins  to  a  priest,  but  only  to  God,  nor 
would  they  worship  the  holy  cross,  nor  relics,  nor  pictures, 
and  they  denied  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  believing 
that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. The  Armenian  patriarch  and  priest  were  greatly 
exasperated  as  these  ideas  began  to  prevail  amongst  their 
people.  Their  reproofs  and  warnings  not  availing  any- 
thing, they  soon  resorted  to  persecution.  Some  of  those 
who  received  these  new  opinions  were  first  imprisoned, 
and  then  sent  into  cruel  banishment  to  far  distant  places. 
Some  suffered  the  bastinado,  or  beating  with  rods  on  the 
naked  feet,  in  some  cases  the  patriarch  and  priest  in- 
flicting this  punishment  with  their  own  hands.  iSTot  a 
few  who  had  shops  had  their  goods  thrown  into  the  streets 
and  the  doors  locked  against  them.  Sometimes  men  were 
forcibly  turned  out  of  their  own  houses  into  the  street, 
and  their  wives  and  children  with  them.  Worse  than  all, 
the  fearful  anathema  was  publicly  pronounced  against 
them,  forbidding  all  men  either  to  buy  or  sell,  give  any- 
thing to  these  guilty  parties,  or  even  speak  to  them ;  so 
they  were  driven  out,  they  and  their  families,  to  starve. 

]^ow,  no  other  crimes  were  charged  against  these  per- 
sons but  that  they  did  not  believe  what  their  church 
believes.  They  were  all  honest,  industrious,  good  citi- 
zens, and  subjects  of  the  Porte.  But,  finding  out  that  the 
Scriptures  do  not  teach  the  creed  of  the  Armenian 
Church,  they  no  longer  received  it.  The  whole  trouble 
was  a  matter  of  opinions. 

Look  now  at  this  picture,  and  then  at  the  foregoing  one. 
Are  they  not,  to  a  large  extent,  identical  ?  The  abolition- 
ists of  Kew  England  thought  slaveholding  a  sin.  The 
American  Board  did  not  agree  with  them,  and  resort  is 
had  to  violent  measures  to  compel  their  acceptance  of  the 
abolitionist  creed.  Just  so  the  Armenian  ecclesiastics 
held  it  a  sin  for  their  people  not  to  believe  what  their 
church  taught,   and  they  resort  to  violent  measures  to 


160  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

compel  submission.  Freedom  of  opinion  and  belief  is 
the  question  in  both  places.  In  l)oth  eases,  arguments 
prove  inefficient,  and  force  is  cruelly  employed.  Still 
further,  the  date  of  both  these  affairs  is  one  and  the  same. 
It  was  in  1845  that  the  American  Board  first  succumbed 
to  the  rising  power  of  abolitionism  so  far  as  to  speak  out 
against  the  wickedness  of  slavery,  and  to  write  to  the 
Choctaw  missionaries  that  they  should  train  their  church 
members  to  the  duty  of  emancipating  their  slaves.  But 
in  1847  the  Board  were  made  to  feel  that  the  missionaries 
had  not  given  proper  heed  to  the  instruction  about  eman- 
cipation given  them  in  1845  ;  and  so,  two  decidedly  aboli- 
tionist secretaries  having  been  elected  this  year,  one  of 
these  is  sent  out  to  enforce  these  instructions  to  the  mis- 
sionaries, and  thus  1845,  1846  and  1847  become  the 
period  when  abolitionism  gains  absolute  sway  over  the 
American  Board.  Just  so  in  the  case  of  the  Armenian 
persecutors — it  was  early  in  1845  that  Matteos  Patriarch 
resolved  on  inore  vigorous  measures  of  persecution  than 
had  ever  been  employed ;  so  all  through  1846  he  prac- 
tised the  greatest  cruelties  against  the  poor  Armenians, 
until,  through  the  influence  of  the  British  ambassador, 
an  end  was  put  to  it  in  1847. 

Looking  back  from  this  year  (1897)  upon  the  occur- 
rences between  1846  and  1859,  which  I  have  here  related, 
it  is  a  humiliating  spectacle  to  behold  a  great  Christian 
institution  like  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  forced,  by  fanatical 
principles,  to  take  so  unchristian  a  position. 

But  is  it  not  a  very  remarkable,  and  a  still  more  humil- 
iating spectacle,  to  look  back  and  observe  how,  m  almost 
the  very  next  year,  these  same  fanatical  ideas  tore  apart 
these  great  Christian  States  and  people,  and  forced  them 
into  a  cruel  fratricidal  war  ?  Some  say  the  South  went 
to  war  for  slavery.  It  is  more  true  that  the  l^orth  went 
to  war  against  slavery. 

What  was  that  influence  which  so  aroused  the  ISTorth- 
ern  States  against  slavery,  and  made  them  so  clamorous 
for  its  abolition?  Was  it  Christianity?  Christianity, 
both  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  and  for  many  long  cen- 
turies afterwards,  did  never  so  raise  her  voice.  Chris- 
tianity operated,  and  still  always  operates,  in  a  much 
profounder,  far  gentler,  and  more  wholesome  manner. 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  161 

What  lio'ht  does  the  past  history  of  Christianity  shed 
upon  this  question  ?  Adam  Smith,  Hallam,  and  Macaulay 
also,  in  his  History  of  England^  all  speak  of  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  Europe  as  having  been  very  silently,  and  in 
its  progress  imperceptibly,  effected,  neither  by  legislative 
regulation  nor  physical  force.  What  share  Christianity 
had  in  effecting  this  abolition  has  been  much  disputed. 
Guizot,  Muratori,  Millar,  Sismondi,  and  the  Pictorial  His- 
torian of  England,  allow  her  very  little  influence.  On 
the  other  hand,  Robertson,  the  historian  of  Charles  V., 
Biot,  an  elaborate  French  author,  who  got  a  gold  medal 
from  the  French  Academy  of  Moral  and  Polemical  Science 
for  his  work  De  V AhoUtion  de  VEsclavageAncien  en  Occi- 
dent, and  the  Rev.  Churchill  Babington,  of  St.  John's 
College,  Cambridge,  who  got  the  Hulsean  prize  for  the 
year  1845,  for  an  essay  on  the  same  subject — all  these  and 
others  ascribe  the  greatest  influence  to  Christianity  as 
the  only  power  which  has  lasted  long  enough,  or  been  uni- 
versal enough,  or  unmixed  and  constant  enough,  to  accom- 
plish such  a  task. 

But  it  is  curious,  indeed,  as  a  question  of  historical 
philosophy,  to  see  how  exceedingly  gradual  was  the  pro- 
cess by  which  Christianity  operated  in  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  ISTot  only  Guizot,  on  the  one  side,  declares  that 
"slavery  subsisted  a  long  time  in  the  bosom  of  Christian 
society  without  any  great  horror  or  irritation  being  ex- 
pressed against  it,"  but  Biot,  on  the  other  side,  tells  us  that 
no  "Christian  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  speak  of 
the  abolition  of  slavery  as  a  consequence  of  Christianity." 
And  Babington,  after  quoting  many  passages  from  Basil, 
Chrysostom,  Jerome  and  other  early  fathers,  remarks, 
"!N^ot  one  of  these  writers  even  hints  that  slavery  is  im- 
proper or  unlawful."  This  same  writer  also  refers  to  the 
fact  that  "Christianity  has,  for  eighteen  centuries,  been 
operating  upon  European  servitude."  He  also  remarks, 
"Christianity  has  been  constantly  producing  such  an 
effect  upon  society  that  Avhen  one  thousand  years  had 
passed  away,  strict  personal  slavery  had,  in  most  parts  of 
Europe,  begun  to  disappear."  * 

*  See  article  on  the  "Christian  Doctrine  of  Human  Rights  and 
Slavery,"  which  I  published  in  March,  1849,  in  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Rcvieiip   (Vol.  II.,  pp.  582-583). 


162  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Now,  it  is  true,  and  will  forever  remain  true,  that  our 
Southern  slavery  was  just  a  grand  civilizing  and  Chris- 
tianizing school,  providentially  prepared  to  train  thou- 
sands of  negro  slaves,  brought  hither  from  Africa  by 
other  people  against  our  protest,  some  two  hundred  years 
ago.  Never  was  any  statement  more  absurdly  false  than 
that  slavery  degraded  the  negroes  of  the  South  from  a 
higher  to  a  lower  position.  The  truth  is,  that  all  the  good 
there  ever  was  arising  out  of  the  presence  of  these  people 
in  this  country  was  due  to  the  fact  that,  coming  hither  as 
slaves,  they  were  permitted  to  remain  a  long  time  at  the 
school  of  slavery,  to  receive  there  a  most  valuable  educa- 
tion. All  this  is  true,  and  the  Southern  people  and  their 
children's  children  owe  it  to  themselves  and  to  their  fore- 
fathers, to  maintain  forever  these  truths  against  all  oppo- 
nents. The  negroes  were  brought  to  us  as  naked  savages ; 
many  of  them,  perhaps  most  of  them,  had  been  slaves  in 
their  own  country ;  of  the  rest,  some  had  been  cannibals. 
They  were  just  the  same  sort  of  people  with  which  mis- 
sionaries to  Africa  now  make  us  familiar  in  their  letters. 
Whenever  necessary,  as  in  the  case  of  cannibals  and  other 
ferocious  negroes,  the  discipline  of  the  school  which 
slavery  kept  was  severe.  They  had  to  be  subjugated  by 
their  masters,  or  their  presence  would  have  been  intoler- 
able. But,  for  the  most  part,  these  poor  Africans,  two 
hundred  years  ago,  were,  as  they  are  now,  as  reported  by 
missionaries,  a  gentle,  docile  people.  It  followed  that  the 
discipline  of  the  school  had  no  need  to  be  otherwise  than 
kind  and  gentle.  Accordingly,  do^vn  to  the  period  of 
emancipation,  the  relation  betwixt  master  and  slave  in 
these  Southern  States  was,  on  both  sides,  generally  a 
kindly  one.  This  no  one  can  deny  who  was  acquainted 
with  the  system.  There  w^ere  cruel  masters,  as  there  were 
cruel  fathers  and  cruel  husbands.  To  speak  of  no  higher 
motives  which  every  slaveholder  warmly  cherished  (or 
else  he  incurred  inevitably  shame  and  dishonor  from  his 
neighbors),  the  master  knew  that  his  slave  was  worth  and 
cost  money.  The  master  of  a  horse  that  has  cost  him 
much  will  not  treat  him  cruelly  unless  more  of  a  brute 
than  the  very  horse.  How  could  the  master  of  a  slave  so 
far  forget  his  own  interest  as  to  be  cruel  to  his  slave  unless 


WHAT  FOLLOWED.  163 

he  was  a  brute  himself  ?  In  the  great  and  good  school  of 
slavery,  then,  our  slaves  were  receiving  the  most  needful 
and  valuable  education  for  this  life,  and  very  many  of 
them  for  the  life  to  come.  The  two  races  were  steadily 
and  constantly  marching  onwards  and  upwards  together. 
Hence,  when  emancipation  was  suddenly  forced  upon  us, 
it  found  a  good  many  pupils  in  the  school  of  slavery  who 
were  ready  to  be  gi-aduated,  while  it  found  all  of  them 
considerably  educated.  One  hundred  years  more  of  the 
school  of  slavery  might  have  fitted  them  all  for  gradua- 
tion. History  tells  us  that  European  Christianity  took 
eighteen  centuries  to  turn  slaves  into  free  men.  ^jNTorth- 
ern  statesmanship  gave  us  the  palm.  Its  decree  was  that 
our  school  of  slavery,  in  these  Southern  States,  had  re- 
quired only  two  hundred  years  to  fit  naked  African  sav- 
ages for  the  American  ballot,  and  to  be  the  statesmen  and 
the  senators,  and,  if  need  be,  the  presidents  of  this  great 
republic. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Five  Years"  Work  as  a  Missionary  to  the  Negroes 
IN  Charleston". 

1847-1851. 

HAVII^G  thus  been  prevented  from  returning  to  my 
Armenian  work,  my  resolution  was  at  length 
taken  to  devote  myself  to  the  religious  instruction  of  the 
negroes  in  Charleston. 

But  what  I  projDosed  to  begin  appeared  to  very  many 
of  the  citizens  of  Charleston  a  dangerous  project.  The 
idea  of  building  a  church  where  negroes  were  to  assemble 
for  worship,  separate  from  the  whites,  even  though  the 
minister  was  to  be  a  white  man,  and  the  Sunday-school 
teachers  all  white  gentlemen  and  ladies,  was  not  only  novel, 
but,  to  many  persons,  alarming.  And  yet  the  religious 
instruction  of  the  eight  thousand  colored  communicants 
was,  by  far  the  larger  part  of  it,  actually  carried  on  sep- 
arately from  the  whites,  and,  what  was  more,  the  real 
teachers  were  colored  men.  In  the  Methodist  churches 
the  whole  body  of  the  negroes,  say  five  thousand  in  num- 
ber, were  divided  into  classes,  and  the  leaders  of  these 
classes  were  all  negroes.  The  same  system  was,  more  or 
less,  fully  carried  out  in  all  the  other  churches.  The  white 
pastors  could  not  have  much  oversight  of  all  these  classes, 
or  even  of  all  these  class-leaders.  What  was  in  their 
power  these  white  ministers  performed,  but,necessarily,it 
amounted  to  but  little.  I  proposed  to  make  a  small  be- 
ginning of  a  better  plan,  considering  the  interest  both  of 
black  people  and  of  white  ones.  One  argument  which  I 
used  against  the  prevailing  system  was  that  it  made  no 
adequate  provision  for  seating  even  eight  thousand  com- 
municants. The  galleries  of  the  white  churches  could  not 
contain  more  than  one-fourth  of  their  number,  so  that  the 
idea  of  adequate  oversight  of  the  colored  portion  of  their 
flocks,  by  the  white  pastors,  was  really  absurd.     So  there 


FIVE  years'  work  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  165 

was  a  call  for  the  beginning  of  a  better  system.  Yet  it 
was  insisted  by  my  opponents  that  there  was  adequate 
room,  and  my  friend,  Dr.  Whitefoord  Smith,  one  of  the 
Methodist  pastors,  and  a  most  eloquent  and  popular  and 
worthy  one,  actually  took  me  with  him  to  measure  one  of 
their  galleries,  and  convince  me  of  my  error.  But  I  think 
the  actual  measurement  rather  convinced  him  that  he  was 
wrong. 

But  the  real  ground  of  the  opposition  which  I  encoun- 
tered on  the  part  of  many  in  the  Charleston  community, 
had  a  history  which  I  have  already  given,  and  to  which 
I  must  now  again  allude.    Twenty-five  years  previously  a 
plot  had  been  discovered  among  the  negroes  for  a  murder- 
ous insurrection  against  the  white  people.    Many  negroes 
were  arrested  and  tried,  but  most  of  them  being  found  in- 
nocent, were  released,  yet  some  thirty-five  or  forty  of 
them  were  executed.     Of  these,  I  myself,  when  a  boy 
eleven  years  old,  saw  twenty-two  hanged  on  one  gallows. 
A  very  profound  impression  was  made  by  these  occur- 
rences upon  both  the  white  and  black  population  of  the 
city.  Unfortunately,  whether  justly  or  not,  a  separate  col- 
ored church,  which  had  existed  some  years,  with  a  most 
excellent  negro  man  for  its  minister,  was  accused  of  some 
complicity  in  the  plot.     The  storm  that  arose  wrecked  the 
church.     He  moved  to  Philadelphia,  and  he  became  sub- 
sequently a  bishop  in  some  negro  denomination,  and  the 
members  of  his  Charleston  church  and  congregation  were 
all  glad  to  house  themselves  from  the  tempest  in  the  col- 
ored membership  of  the  different  white  churches.     The 
consequence  of  all  these  events  was  that  the  idea  of  a 
separate  church  for  negroes,  which  was  the  plan  proposed, 
could  not  be  thought  of  by  hundreds  of  people  in  Charles- 
ton without  horror.     But  there  were  many  intelligent, 
sober-minded.  Christian  men  and  women  who  saw  noth- 
ing in  my  plan  but  what  promised  to  be  useful  in  the 
highest  degree,  and  they  gave  me  their  earnest  support. 
Dr.   Smyth,  pastor  of  the  Second  church,  seconded  me 
very  earnestly;    so  did  all  my  brothers,  and  the  four  of 
them  agreed  to  supply  my  support.     My  father  also  gave 
me    his    approbation    and    countenance.     Many  leading 
members  of  the  Second  church  strongly  favored  what  I 


166  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

proposed,  after  hearing  a  discourse  wherein  I  publicly 
set  forth  mj  views  and  desires.     Charleston  Presbytery 
also  declared  its  approval  of  my  plan.     The  sermon  al- 
luded to  was  preached  on  the  9th  of  May,  1847,  and  was 
afterwards  published,  with  an  appendix  containing-  the 
resolutions  that  were  offered  by  the  Hon.  Francis  H.  El- 
more and  adopted  by  the  congregation.     The  text  of  the 
sermon  was,  ''The  poor  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them." 
In  opening  his  discourse,  the  preacher  referred  to  his  hav- 
ing been  a  missionary  for  over  twelve  years  to  the  Arme- 
nians, in  Smyrna,  Constantinople  and  Asia  Minor,  and 
to  his  transfer  now  being  effected  to  a  domestic  mission- 
ary work  in  this  city.     Various  considerations  had  oper- 
ated to  induce  his  consent  to  this  transfer.     One  was  that 
the  impaired  condition  of  his  eyesight  unfitted  him  for 
further  labors  as  a  translator  in  that  arid  climate  and 
under  that  brilliant  sky.    Another  was  that,  when  he  went 
forth,  it  was  with  the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  of  the  Southern  churches  in  partic- 
ular ;    but  this  s;\^npathy  and  support,  naturally  of  great 
value  to  him,  had  long  been  withdrawn,  and  he  had  felt 
himself  cut  off  and  isolated.     Strong  and  agitating  influ- 
ences meanwhile  had  been  at  work,  drawing  him  centre- 
wards,  and  leading  him  to  feel  that  it  was  time  for  him 
to  cast  in  his  lot  with  his  own  people.     Still  another  was 
the  natural  obligation  which  he  felt,  and  had  always  felt, 
to  do  something  for  the  religious  instruction  of  the  igno- 
rant colored  people  of  his  native  city,  Charleston. 
The  points  discussed  in  the  sermon  were — 

I.  The  inquiry  who,  expressly  and  particularly,  are  the 
poor  of  the  city  of  Charleston; 

II.  The  fact  that  the  gospel  is  not  adequately  preached 
to  them ;   and 

III.  The  obligation  and  expediency  of  making  a  fuller 
provision  for  their  spiritual  wants. 

The  inquiry,  "Who  are  our  poor  ?"  is  answered  in  the 
following  terms :  "The  poor  of  this  city  are  easily  dis- 
tinguishable. They  are  a  class  separated  from  ourselves 
by  their  color,  their  position  in  society,  their  relation  to 
our  families,  their  national  origin,  and  their  moral,  intel- 
lectual and  physical  condition.     J^owhere  are  the  poor 


FIVE  YEAKS"  WORK  AMOIS^G  THE  NEGROES.  167 

more  distinctly  marked  out  than  our  poor ;  and  yet, 
strange  to  say,  nowhere  are  the  j^oor  so  closely  and  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  higher  classes  as  are  our  poor 
with  us.  They  belong  to  us.  We  also  belong  to  them. 
They  are  divided  out  among  us  and  mingled  up  with  us, 
and  we  with  them  in  a  thousand  ways.  They  live  with 
us,  eating  from  the  same  store-houses,  drinking  from  the 
same  fountains,  dwelling  in  the  same  enclosures,  forming 
parts  of  the  same  families.  Our  mothers  confide  us, 
when  infants,  to  their  arms,  and  sometimes  to  the  very 
milk  of  their  breasts.  Their  children  are,  to  some  extent, 
unavoidably  the  playmates  of  our  childhood — grow  up 
with  us  under  the  same  roof — sometimes  pass  through  all 
the  changes  of  life  with  us,  and  then,  either  they  stand 
weeping  by  our  bedside,  or  else  we  drop  a  tributary  tear 
by  theirs,  when  death  comes  to  close  the  long  connection 
and  to  separate  the  good  master  and  his  good  servant. 

"Such,  my  friends,  are  those  whom  we  consider  the 
poor  of  this  city.  There  they  are — behold  them.  See 
them  all  around  you,  in  these  streets,  in  all  these  dwellings  ; 
a  race  distinct  from  us,  yet  closely  united  to  us ;  brought 
in  God's  mysterious  providence  from  a  foreign  land,  and 
placed  under  our  care,  and  made  members  of  our  house- 
holds. They  fill  the  humblest  places  of  our  state  of  so- 
ciety ;  they  serve  us  ;  they  give  us  their  strength,  yet  they 
are  not  more  truly  ours  than  we  are  truly  theirs.  They 
are  our  poor — our  poor  brethren;  children  of  our  God 
and  Father ;  dear  to  our  Saviour ;  to  the  like  of  whom  he 
preached ;  for  the  like  of  whom  he  died,  and  to  the  least 
of  whom  every  act  of  Christian  compassion  and  kindness 
which  we  show  he  will  consider  as  shown  also  to  him- 
self." 

In  the  second  place,  the  inadequacy  of  preaching 
amongst  us  for  the  poor  was  conclusively  proved  by  ap- 
pealing to  facts.  The  inadequacy  of  the  provisions  made 
consisted  chiefly  in  two  things^  first,  a  want  of  sufficient 
church  accommodations,  and,  second,  a  want  of  suitable 
instruction — instruction  adapted  to  the  condition  and 
capacity  of  the  negro.  On  this  point  it  will  not  be  neces- 
sary to  quote  from  the  sermon,  as  the  statements  pre- 
viously made  in  this  chapter  are  sufficient. 


168  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

In  the  third  place,  the  obligation  and  expediency  of 
preaching  the  gospel  to  the  poor  was  enforced  by  such  con- 
siderations as  these:  God  has  committed  the  gospel  to  us 
as  Christians,  that  we  may  preach  it  to  all  men,  including 
the  poor ;  the  grand  distinction  of  the  gospel  is  that  it  is 
designed  especially  for  the  j)oor,  the  destitute,  the  miser- 
able and  wretched,  the  ignorant  and  the  perishing;  the 
inestimable  value  of  these  classes,  as  immortal  beings; 
the  faithful  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  our  poor  will  be 
followed  by  great  advantages  to  our  own  children,  and, 
therefore,  it  is  our  bounden  duty  to  give  them  the 
gospel. 

In  the  very  first  of  the  thirty-six  volumes  of  the  South- 
ern Presbyterian  Beview,  which  had,  just  about  this  time, 
begun  to  be  published,  there  appeared  (Vol.  II.,  p.  137) 
from  Dr.  Thornwell's  pen  a  review  of  this  sermon.  He 
expressed  his  deliberate  judgment  on  various  grounds, 
stated  by  him,  that  the  plan  of  separate  congrega- 
tions is  the  only  j)lan  which  promises  any  adequate  or 
efficient  provision  for  the  religious  instruction  of  our 
slaves.  They  must  not  forsake  the  assembling  of  them- 
selves together;  they  must  attend  upon  the  ministry  of 
the  gospel.  But  the  duty  of  public  worship  cannot  be 
discharged  by  them,  nor  the  advantages  of  public  instruc- 
tion received,  as  long  as  they  are  doomed  to  scanty  and 
contracted  sections  of  our  church  edifices,  and  compelled 
to  listen  to  ministrations  which  presuppose,  for  the  most 
part,  a  preliminary  knowledge  which  they  do  not  and 
cannot  possess.  The  same  gospel  must  be  differently  dis- 
pensed, in  order  to  have  its  full  measure  of  success  upon 
men  so  diverse  in  capacities  and  attainments  as  the  two 
races  amongst  us. 

'^ There  is  another  point  of  view,"  said  Dr.  Thornwell, 
"in  which  the  expediency  of  giving  them  preachers  pe- 
culiarly devoted  to  themselves  may  be  strikingly  ex- 
hibited. If  ive  do  not  furnish  them  with  men  qualified  to 
teach  them,  they  will  provide  themselves  wnth  others,  who 
will  pander  to  their  tastes,  and  develop  the  religious  ele- 
ment of  their  nature  m  forms,  it  may  be,  incompatible 
with  their  ovni  improvement,  and  the  interests  of  their 
masters.     ISio  human  laws  and  no  human  vigilance  can 


FIVE  YEAES"  WOEK  AMONG  THE  NEGEOES.  169 

prevent  them  from  assembling  for  the  purpose  of  worship. 
Man  is  essentially  a  religions  creature,  and  religion  is 
essentially  a  social  quality.  As  in  the  days  of  the  Empire, 
neither  imperial  laws  nor  imperial  cruelty  could  put  an 
effectual  interdict  upon  the  occasional  and  solemn  convo- 
cations of  the  primitive  Christians,  so  it  will  be  with  the 
negroes  amongst  us.  They  must  gratify  the  religious 
yearnings  of  their  souls ;  and  to  attempt  to  restrain  them 
in  the  exercise  of  what  they  feel  to  be  a  high,  holy  and 
imperative  duty,  will  appear  to  them  as  'tyranny  from 
policy,  which  will  fully  justify  rebellion  from  principle.' 
Gratuitous  abridgments  of  the  liberty  of  worship,  arm 
the  strongest  feelings  of  their  nature  against  the  authority 
of  their  master.  Our  own  security  is  best  consulted,  not 
by  violent  resistance  to  any  original  impulse  of  the  heart, 
not  by  tempting  to  extirpate  or  destroy  it,  but  by  giving 
it  a  wise  direction  and  turning  it  into  safe  and  salutary 
channels.  Separate  congregations,  therefore,  they  luill 
have.  If  our  laws  and  the  public  sentiment  of  the  com- 
munity tolerate  them,  they  will  be  open,  public,  responsi- 
ble. If  our  laws  prohibit  them,  they  will  be  secret,  fanat- 
ical, dangerous.  Teachers  they  will  have.  If  we  supply 
them,  they  will  be  teachers  indeed,  instructing  them  in  the 
mysteries  of  heaven,  and  conducting  them  in  the  paths 
of  holiness,  and  obedience,  and  peace.  If  they  are  com- 
pelled surreptitiously  to  supply  themselves,  they  will  heap 
to  themselves  teachers  after  their  o\vn  lusts,  who  will  give 
them  fanaticism  for  piety,  excitement  for  devotion,  and 
enthusiasm  for  faith.  Is  it  not  safer  to  gratify  the  relig- 
ious impulses  of  their  nature  by  an  adequate  provision  on 
our  part,  which  will  at  once  promote  their  improvement 
and  league  their  purest  and  noblest  affections  on  the  side 
of  their  masters  'i  To  give  them  the  means  of  worship- 
ping God,  to  give  them  preachers  who  shall  manifest  an 
earnest  and  anxious  solicitude  for  the  salvation  of  their 
souls ;  to  give  them  houses  in  which  they  can  meet  for 
prayer  and  praise  and  the  word  of  exhortation ;  to  dis- 
play the  same  care  for  their  eternal  and  spiritual  interests 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  cherish  for  their  health,  food 
and  raiment,  would  be  an  exhibition  of  Christian  sym- 
pathy, on  our  part,  which  could    not    fail    to  reach  the 


170 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


hearts  of  a  race  proverbially  grateful,  and  sweeten  the 
intercourse  betwixt  the  master  and  his  slave." 

It  was  ordered,  in  the  providence  of  God,  that  very 
soon  after  this  Presbyterian  movement,  a  very  similar, 
but  entirely  independent  one,  was  commenced  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  The  Diocesan  Convention  of  South  Car- 
olina, meeting  in  St.  Michael's  church,  appointed  the 
Kev.  Paul  Trapier  to  gather  a  congregation  of  negroes,  to 
be  under  his  individual  pastoral  instruction  and  care, 
with  some  white  assistance.  I  happened  to  be  present,  as 
a  spectator,  in  the  gallery  of  the  church,  when  the  conven- 
tion took  up  this  matter,  and  I  was  greatly  cheered  by  the 
hearty  manner  in  which  that  eminent  body  dealt  with 
this  subject.  My  impression  is  that  not  a  single  voice 
was  raised  in  opposition.  Many  of  the  lay  members  of 
that  body  were  large  slaveholders  themselves.  There 
were  also  quite  a  number  of  other  lay  members  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  who  were  quite  wide  awake  to  the  duty 
of  giving  sound  religious  instruction  to  our  negroes.  I 
recall  the  names  of  two  young  men,  Russell  Middleton, 
afterwards  President  of  Charleston  College,  and  Henry 
D.  Lesesne,  then  a  student  in  the  law  office  of  James  L. 
Petigru,  who  afterwards  was  well  kno^nl  as  Chancellor 
Lesesne.  These  young  gentlemen  were  full  of  zeal  on 
the  subject  of  the  white  man's  duty  of  directly  interesting 
his  negro  slave  in  religion.  Edward  McCrady,  Esq., 
and  C.  G.  Memminger,  Esq.,  both  eminent  lawyers  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  were  also  very  hearty  in  their  appro- 
bation of  this  work. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Trapier,  at  the  request  of  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  Diocesan  Convention,  preached  a  ser- 
mon, on  Sundays  in  July,  in  several  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  churches,  and  this  sermon  was  published  widely 
in  the  community.  His  text  was  taken  from  Colossians 
iv.  1,  "Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is 
just  and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  master  in 
heaven."  The  preacher  then  urges  the  duty  of  the  relig- 
ious training  of  our  servants  by  the  example  of  Abra- 
ham ;  by  precepts,  both  from  the  Old  and  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ments ;  by  an  appeal  to  humanity,  and  a  sense  of  "such 
favors  as  the  humblest  may  confer  upon  the  loftiest." 


FIVE  years"  work  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  171 

He  then  proceeds  to  set  forth  the  real  state  of  the  case. 
"There  are,  according  to  the  census  of  1810,  about  twenty 
thousand  slaves  in  our  city  and  its  suburbs,  and  not  more 
than  one  thousand  of  these  are  in  any  way  connected  with 
our  six  Episcopal  churches ;  nor  in  all  the  other  places  of 
worship,  and  of  all  denominations,  it  is  estimated  that 
more  than  five  thousand  can  be  accommodated.  This 
leaves  an  appalling  residue  of  fourteen  thousand.  Where 
are  they  ?  And  what  is  becoming  of  them  ?  They  are 
human  beings,  with  thoughts  and  feelings  of  their  own. 
Their  hearts  are,  in  common  with  those  of  all  the  rest  of 
mankind,  prone  to  sin  and  averse  from  God  and  holiness. 
Do  you  imagine  that,  left  to  themselves,  they  will  not  go 
on  from  bad  to  worse,  catching  and  communicating  con- 
tagion by  association  ?  Or,  do  you  fancy  that  they  are  to 
be  kept  from  doing  so  by  the  strong  arm  of  domestic  dis- 
cipline, or  detected  and  punished  by  the  vigilance  of  mu- 
nicipal agency  ?  N^ay,  brethren !  it  is  notorious  that  such 
expedients,  however  useful  and  indispensable,  do  not,  and 
cannot,  effect  a  cure  of  this  or  any  other  moral  disease ; 
nor  even  arrest  its  progress ;  nor  reach  the  hiding-places 
of  its  real  origin.  For  these  are  in  the  heart ;  and  it  is 
because  our  servants  are  not  Christians  that  so  many  of 
them  are  given  to  vices  and  guilty  of  offences  ruinous  to 
themselves,  hurtful  to  their  fellows,  injurious  to  us,  and 
pestilential  to  our  whole  community.  ,  .  .  Suffer  me, 
nevertheless,  to  inquire  of  you  again.  Are  you  doing  what 
you  ought  and  may  for  their  souls  ?  .  .  .  For  the  four- 
teen thousand  not  connected  efficiently  with  any  denomi- 
nation of  Christians,  ...  as  to  any  influence  upon 
them  for  spiritual  good,  I  ask  again.  Where  are  they  ? 
'Sitting  in  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death,'  'without 
Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and 
without  God  in  the  world.'  (Ephesians  ii.  12.)  The 
heathen  in  our  midst,  as  they  have  been  truly  named,  nay, 
in  one  respect,  worse  off  than  heathen  elsewhere — these  at 
our  doors  are  exposed  to  the  evils  of  civilization,  and  its 
vices  are  corrupting  them ;  while  of  its  moral  benefits 
scarcely  a  knowledge  have  they,  unless  by  the  contrast  of 
their  own  deprivation  and  consequent  spiritual  wretched- 
ness." 


172  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Mr.  Trapier,  in  the  second  place,  then  alludes  to  "the 
action  of  the  late  convention  by  which  a  committee  was 
appointed,  not  to  consider  and  report,  but  to  make  ar- 
rangements for  establishing  and  keeping  up  the  congre- 
gation proposed."  He  states  also  that  "our  every  step 
hitherto  has  been  under  the  tacit  sanction  and  with  the 
approval,  expressed  or  implied,  by  those  who  are  over  us 
in  church  and  State."  .  .  .  "The  convention,  by  its 
vote  electing  the  committee,  has  lent  its  countenance; 
and  our  bishop,  who  was  not  present  then,  has  since  sig- 
nified to  us,  in  writing,  his  good  wishes,  and  bidden  us 
Godspeed." 

In  the  third  place,  Mr.  Trapier  again  recurs  to  the 
question,  "What  shall  we  do  for  our  servants  V  and  he 
proceeds  to  set  forth  the  plan  of  his  committee  which  in 
every  essential  particular  is  the  same  proposed  by  the 
Presbyterians. 

But  while  the  Episcopal  Church  seemed  to  be  quite 
united  in  approving  separate  religious  worship  and  public 
instruction  for  the  negroes,  to  be  directly  afforded  them 
by  a  white  minister  and  other  white  teachers,  it  soon  be- 
gan to  be  clear  that  I  would  meet  with  opposition  from 
Presbyterians.  A  prominent  lawyer  of  Charleston  was 
afterwards  judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court, 
and  subsequently  Governor  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
during  the  war,  assailed  me  by  name  in  the  Charleston 
Mercury,  then  the  leading  political  paper  of  South  Caro- 
lina. He  was  an  old  school-mate  of  mine  in  our  boyish 
days.  He  signed  himself  "Many  Citizens,"  and  por- 
trayed in  dark  colors  the  dangerous  character  of  my  move- 
ment. This  gentleman  was  a  member  of  the  First  Pres- 
byterian church,  commonly  called  the  Scotch  Church, 
and  it  was  well  understood  generally  that  the  pastor  of 
that  church  earnestly  supported  him.  "Many  Citizens" 
wrote  two  articles  in  the  Mercury  before  I  felt  called  on 
to  reply.  Then  a  third  communication  from  him  ap- 
peared. My  second  followed  immediately,  and  the  discus- 
sion was  closed  by  the  editor.  It  had  excited  very  great 
interest.  "Many  Citizens"  sought  to  arouse  the  fears  of 
a  community  which  had  not  forgotten  the  events  of  1822  ; 
but  he  could  not  prevail  against  the  calm  and  sober  argu- 


FIVE  YEAES"*  WORK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  173 

ments  that  were  brought  forward  on  the  other  side.  This 
controversy  is  now  out  of  date,  and  I  need  not  repeat  here 
any  of  its  details. 

By  reason  of  this  controversy,  the  Presbyterian  move- 
ment was  somewhat  retarded ;  but  the  Episcopalians  had 
moved  quietly  on,  and  had  begun  the  erection  of  their 
church  building.  While  our  walls  were  just  coming  out 
of  the  ground  theirs  had  got  to  be  some  ten  feet  high, 
when  a  mob  of  excited  people  assembled  one  night  and 
were  about  to  pull  them  all  down.  Several  influential 
citizens,  jealous  for  the  honor  of  their  city,  appeared  in 
time  to  persuade  the  multitude  to  desist,  promising  that 
they  would  call  a  public  meeting  to  test  the  sense  of  the 
community  on  the  question.  This  meeting  appointed  a 
committee  of  fifty,  of  which  Daniel  Ravenel,  Sr.,  was  the 
cliairman,  to  inquire  into  the  matter.  This  committee 
corresponded  with  intelligent  gentlemen  all  over  the 
South,  to  collect  information  which  should  lead  the  city 
to  a  wise  decision.  Then  another  public  meeting  was 
called,  and  the  City  Hall  was  filled  with  an  eager  throng 
of  leading  men.  The  report  of  the  committee  of  fifty  was 
read,  decidedly  favoring  the  movement  as  both  wise  and 
good.  The  opj)osition  was  heard,  first,  through  their 
leader.  I  cannot  recall  his  name,  but  my  recollection  is 
that  he  was  no  citizen  of  Charleston,  a  comparative 
stranger  amongst  us,  and  a  man  of  not  very  good  charac- 
ter. Then  the  Hon.  Francis  H.  Elmore,  who  had  been 
elected  to  fill  out  the  unexpired  term  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  of  the  lamented  Calhoun,  moved  the  adoption  of 
the  report  in  a  very  eloquent  speech.  James  L.  Peti- 
gru,  then,  in  many  respects,  the  topmost  citizen  of 
Charleston,  rose  to  second  it.  Mr.  Elmore  was  a  member 
of  the  congregation  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  church, 
and  his  wife  was  a  professing  member.  He  had  favored 
my  project  strongly  from  the  very  beginning,  and  I  had 
supposed,  of  course,  he  would  speak;  but  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Petigru  had  not  been  counted  on.  It  was  such  a 
speech  as  is  not  often  heard.  I  wish  I  could  recall  and 
report  it.  The  assembly  was  thrilled  as  this  great  citizen 
poured  forth  his  feelings.  But  when  he  came  to  speak 
on  the  "liberty  of  teaching"  what  was  true  and  good  to 


174 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


all  men,  his  big  heart  swelled  with  emotion,  and  so  did 
those  of  his  hearers.  All  I  remember  is  "the  liberty  of 
teaching !  why,  sirs,  that  was  what  brought  many  of  our 
fathers  here."  Petigru  was  a  Huguenot.  The  assem- 
bly understood  his  allusion.  ISTot  many  words  were 
required  to  be  added.  The  question  was  settled  in 
Charleston  for  all  time.  The  nightmare,  which  had  op- 
pressed the  mind  and  heart  of  the  city  for  twenty-five 
years,  vanished. 

My  first  place  for  preaching  to  the  negroes  was  in  the 
basement  of  the  lecture-room  of  the  Second  Presbyterian 
church,  in  Society  street.  We  had  a  Sunday-school  of 
white  teachers,  male  and  female,  and  a  large  number  of 
negro  children  attended,  with  some  adults,  and  I  had  a 
good  congregation,  after  the  Sunday-school  of  grown  peo- 
ple, to  hear  my  sermon.  I  also  had  prayer-meetings  at 
different  places,  and  I  had  a  class  of  male  church  mem- 
bers for  special  instruction.  The  church  in  Anson  street 
was  duly  finished  and  occupied,  after  being  fully  paid 
for  and  solemnly  dedicated,  with  a  large  congregation  of 
the  foremost  citizens  of  Charleston  being  present.  Dr. 
Thornwell  prepared  and  delivered  a  special  sermon,  at 
my  request,  suitable  to  the  occasion.  It  was  afterwards 
published,  and  distributed  widely.  The  building  was 
calculated  to  hold  several  hundred  people,  with  seats  for 
a  few  whites ;  the  negroes  sat  in  front  of  the  preacher 
from  the  pulpit  to  the  door,  and  the  seats  of  the  white 
people  were  on  the  right  and  left  side  of  it,  with  separate 
entrances  for  each  class.  Rev.  Mr.  Trapier's  church  was 
built  somewhere  in  Beaufain  street,  and  both  these  efforts 
were  successfully  carried  on.  In  my  case,  after  five  years' 
labor,  the  condition  of  my  eyes  compelled  me  to  retire, 
and  Dr.  Girardeau  became  my  successor.  Under  his 
faithful  and  earnest  preaching  many  believers  were  added 
to  the  church.  His  labors  were  so  much  blessed  that  the 
first  church  building  in  Anson  street  became  too  small  for 
the  congregation,  and  had  to  give  place  to  the  largest 
church  edifice  in  Charleston.  It  was  erected  in  Boundary 
or  Calhoun  street,  very  near  Meeting  street.  This  im- 
mense T3uilding,  costing  twenty-five  thousand  dollars,  was 
all  paid  for  by  the  white  citizens  of  Charleston,  as  an  ex- 


FIVE  YEAKS'  WOEK  AMO?fG  THE  NEGROES.  175 

pression  of  their  interest  in  the  religions  welfare  of  the 
colored  people.  The  negroes  named  it  Zion.  The  lower 
story  was  devoted  to  the  uses  of  the  Sunday-school  and 
session,  and  the  meetings  for  public  services  were  held 
in  the  wide  area  of  the  upper  story.  The  main  floor  was 
occupied  by  negroes,  for  whom  the  preaching  was  chiefly 
designed ;  but  there  were  galleries  on  three  sides  facing 
the  pulpit  for  the  white  people.  Their  preacher  had  a 
golden  mouth,  as  well  as  Chrysostom.  He  was  raised 
amongst  the  negroes  of  the  low  country,  knew  them  well, 
loved  them  much,  and  was  much  loved  by  them,  and  felt 
from  a  child  a  desire  to  preach  to  them.  His  congrega- 
tion of  blacks  was  generally  not  less  than  one  thousand, 
while  a  good  many  white  people  were  present  in  the  gal- 
leries every  Sunday  afternoon.  That  colored  congrega- 
tion needed  no  music  from  an  organ.  Their  singing  of 
God's  praises  was  magniflcent,  and  suited  well  the  earn- 
est preaching  of  the  gospel  by  their  minister.  He  con- 
tinued his  labors  in  that  pulpit  till  called  to  the  army  dur- 
ing the  latter  part  of  our  four  years'  war,  when  he  Avas 
taken  prisoner,  sent  to  Johnson's  Island,  where  he 
preached  to  his  brother  ofiicers,  and  held  a  Bible-class  for 
some  who  were  ministers,  whom  I  have  heard  speak  of 
the  lessons  they  learned  there  from  his  lips.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  the  influence  of  his  apostlic  instructions  to 
thousands  and  thousands  of  negroes  who  frequented  his 
ministry  during  those  ten  years  in  Zion  church,  had  much 
to  do  with  the  quiet,  peaceable  and  submissive  behavior 
of  the  colored  people  in  Charleston  while  the  war  went  on, 
just  as  I  am  sure  the  same  effect  was  produced  among  the 
slave  population  all  over  the  South,  by  the  sound  religious 
instructions  they  had  been  receiving,  publicly  and  pri- 
vately, for  many  years  before  the  war. 

The  period  at  which  Dr.  Girardeau  suspended  his 
labors  among  the  negroes  was  one  of  great  discouragement 
and  depression  in  the  whole  Southern  country.  It  was 
becoming  more  and  more  evident  that  the  ISTorth  was  mak- 
ing war  upon  us,  to  a  great  extent,  on  account  of  the 
negro.  The  flower  of  our  youth  were  in  the  army.  They 
were  being  made  a  sacrifice  to  our  slaves.  The  hearts  of 
our  people  went  out  to  our  soldiers.    The  missionary  loved 


176 


MY  LIFE  A:N"D  times. 


liis  negro  flock ;  but  he  was  a  wliite  man,  and  he  couhl  not 
but  sympathize  strongly  with  his  young  countrymen  who 
were  pouring  out  their  blood  in  the  patriotic  struggle. 
He  took  no  counsel  with  me  in  deciding  that  it  was  time 
for  him  to  give  his  services  to  our  wounded  and  dying 
soldiers.  But  he  gave  me  thanks  afterwards,  when  I 
told  him  he  was  doing  right.  On  his  return,  after  the 
war,  his  white  brethren,  in  their  dire  distress,  stood  in 
great  need  of  consolation  and  instruction  from  him. 
They  earnestly  called  for  all  his  time  and  strength,  but 
he  could  not  bear  to  desert  the  negro.  ISTot  being  able  my- 
self to  state  precisely  wdiat  arrangements  were  finally 
reached,  so  that  he  might  hearken,  in  part,  to  the  call  of 
his  white  brethren,  and  yet  continue  his  work  among  the 
negroes,  I  addressed  him  in  this  month  of  February, 
1897,  some  inquiries,  and  I  here  append  his  answ^er  in  his 
own  W'Ords : 

My  pastoral  relation  to  the  Zion  church  (colored  and  white)  was 
never  dissolved  (formally)  ;  but  circumstances  made  it  impractica- 
ble for  me  to  serve  the  colored  flock  in  that  relation,  just  after  the 
war.  To  the  Presbyterian  congregations  of  Charleston  I  preached 
for  awhile  at  their  request,  and  with  Dr.  Smyth's  consent,  in  the 
pulpit  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church.  When  Dr.  Smyth  inti- 
mated his  desire  to  return  from  Summerton,  where  he  had  been  a 
refugee  during  the  war,  to  his  church  in  Charleston,  I  at  once  with- 
drew with  the  white  part  of  the  Zion  church,  and  such  of  the  colored 
members  as  worshipped  with  us  in  the  Second  Church,  to  the  Glebe 
Street  Church  building,  which  we  borrowed  from  that  church  organ- 
ization— which  shortly  afterwards  united  xoith  the  Zion  Church 
under  the  style  and  title  of  the  latter.  The  Glebe  Street  Church  was 
absorbed  into  the  Zion  Church.  It  loas  not  a  union  of  coordinates 
under  a  new  name.  Hence  the  name  of  the  united  church  was,  Zion 
Church  worshipping  in  Glebe  street. 

Your  special  point  of  inquiry  is,  how  I  came  to  be  separated  from 
the  coloied  flock  in  Calhoun  street,  to  which  I  had  continued  to 
minister  while  preaching  to  the  white  charge  in  Glebe  street.  By 
what  ecclesiastical  action  did  it  take  place?  By  the  action  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  Columbus,  Miss.,  in  1874. 

In  the  fall  of  1873  the  Sj'nod  of  South  Carolina,  meeting  in  Co- 
lumbia, had  a  warm  discussion  of  the  question  of  admitting  negro 
members  into  our  cliurcli — Mr.  Baxter,  of  Newberry,  the  chief 
speaker  against,  and  the  writer  in  favor.  The  story  is  interesting, 
but  too  long  for  me  to  recite  in  writing.     1  never,  from  the  begin- 


FIVE  years"  work  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  177 

ning,  was  in  favor  of  separating  the  two  races,  of  cutting  off — as  I 
expressed  it — the  negro  race  from  the  white,  like  casting  loose  a 
tow-boat  from  a  great  steamship  in  the  middle  of  a  stormy  ocean. 
But  the  reply  was,  the  Constitution,  the  Constitution !  If  we  admit 
the  negro,  we  must  concede  him  all  the  rights  of  membership,  official 
as  well  as  others.  Very  well,  said  I,  finally,  have  your  way.  I  with- 
draw my  opposition.  Try  the  experiment.  Experience  may  decide 
the  matter.  And  then  what?  Why,  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  de- 
cided to  overture  the  Assembly  in  favor  of  organic  separation  be- 
tween whites  and  blacks  in  the  church,  and  the  establishment  of  an 
independent  African  Presbyterian  church.  In  that  way  the  subject 
came  up  before  the  Assembly  of  1874.  Further,  the  Synod  of  Mis- 
sissippi, led  by  Dr.  B.  M.  Palmer,  submitted  a  similar  overture, 
elaborately  drawn,  and  with  the  usual  eloquence  and  power  of  the 
author.  This  strongly  reinforced  the  South  Carolina  overture.  The 
Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures  reported  favorably  to  these  over- 
tures, and  the  Assembly  voted  that  way  unanimously,  excepting  one 
vote — that  of  the  writer. 

The  issue  was,  retention  of  the  colored  people  in  our  church  or 
organic  separation  from  them.  I  did  not  theoretically  approve  of 
separation,  but,  as  the  whole  church  was  going  that  way,  I  practi- 
cally went  with  it,  but  under  protest. 

Now,  the  circumstances  are  such  that,  like  yourself,  I  favor  an 
Independent  African  Presbyterian  Church;  and  hence  my  course  in 
regard  to  the  case  of  Reuben  James,  lately  before  our  Presbytery  and 
the  Assembly.  Theoretically,  I  still  think  the  policy  of  retention 
the  better  one;  but  practically,  separation  noiv  seems  a  necessity. 
But  I  cannot  write  as  I  wish.    I  grow  tired  and  sick. 

That  Assembly  effected  an  oi'ganic  sei^aration  between  the  two 
races  ecclesiastically,  so  that  the  colored,  if  it  desired  to  do  so, 
could  withdraw  from  any  formal  relation  to  the  white.  Acting  upon 
this  procedure  of  the  General  Assembly,  I  convened  the  colored  con- 
gregation, explained  the  situation  to  them,  and  gave  them  the 
liberty,  if  they  pleased,  to  set  up  for  themselves.  Most  of  the  old 
people  strenuously  opposed  the  separation,  but  Young  Africa  was 
in  favor  of  it.  The  majority  favored  the  separation,  and  among 
them,  I  remember,  he  who  had  always  striven  to  be  in  the  matter  of 
the  singing  aut  Caesar  aut  nullus.  That  was  how  the  breach  oc- 
curred. The  colored  people  voted  for  it,  and  I  gave  them  the  road. 
I  would  like  to  discuss  this  whole  matter  with  you.  It  is  very  in- 
teresting to  me.  But  much  writing  sickens  me.  Hence  I  cannot 
write  you  as  fully  as  I  would  like  to  do. 

With  sympathy  and  earnest  prayer  for  you. 

Affectionately  yours,  Jno.  L.  Girardeau. 


178  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

I  turn  back  now  to  give  some  account  of  the  dedication 
of  the  chnrch  in  Anson  street. 

The  chnrch  building  in  Anson  street,  which  was  erected 
for  the  special  religious  instruction  of  negroes  separately, 
was  dedicated  on  Sabbath  evening, 26th  day  of  May,  1850, 
Dr.  Thornwell,  at  my  request,  preaching  the  sermon. 
The  enterprise  had  encountered  very  serious  difficulties. 
Some  good  men  had  their  fears  about  it.  Some  bad  men 
bitterly  opposed  it.  The  whole  city  had  been  excited. 
More  than  once  in  its  history,  there  had  been  peculiar 
reasons  for  excitement  and  apprehension.  MeauAvhile, 
the  whole  Southern  country,  placed  under  the  ban  of  the 
civilized  world,  had  been  stung  to  madness  by  imjust  re- 
proaches against  our  "cruelty  and  inhumanity"  as  slave- 
holders. Here  was  a  church  built  by  Christian  slave- 
holders for  the  religious  benefit  of  the  slaves.  It  was  felt 
to  be  suitable  that,  in  opening  this  house  for  this  specific 
use,  they  should  set  their  views  before  the  other  Christian 
slaveholders  of  the  South.  It  was  possible  that,  in  this 
way,  we  might  stimulate  their  faithfulness  and  diligence 
in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  spring  from  the  rela- 
tion of  masters  and  servants.  It  was  also  possible  that  we 
might  contribute  somewhat  to  the  correction  of  those 
world-wide  errors  which  prevailed  as  to  the  true  character 
of  slavery,  as  it  existed  amongst  us.  Accordingly,  the 
congregation  that  assembled  to  take  part  in  the  dedication 
of  the  house  to  the  worship  of  God  by  negroes,  was  com- 
posed exclusively  of  white  people.  It  was  a  dedication 
by  the  masters  of  the  slaves.  It  was  an  act  of  intelligent 
Christian  citizens,  whom  the  world  was  charging  with  the 
dreadful  sin  of  slaveholding.  Dr.  Thornwell,  therefore, 
took  his  text  from  Colossians  iv.  1.,  "Masters,  give  unto 
your  servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal,  knowing  that 
ye  also  have  a  master  in  heaven,"  and  so,  we  may  say,  the 
subject  of  his  sermon  was  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
slavery.  I  make  bold  to  say  that  the  reader  has  never 
read  a  clearer,  fairer,  stronger,  more  satisfactory  presen- 
tation of  this  subject. 

The  preacher,  after  remarking  that  we  had  been  "de- 
nounced with  every  epithet  of  vituperation  and  abuse,  as 
conspirators  against  the  dignity  of  man,  traitors  to  our 


FIVE   years'  WOEK  AMOjS^G  THE  NEGROES.  179 

race,  and  rebels  against  God,"  and,  after  exhorting  to 
'"maintain  the  moderation  and  dignity  which  become  us," 
opened  his  discourse  with  the  observation,  "God  has  not 
permitted  such  a  remarkable  phenomenon  as  the  unanim- 
ity of  the  civilized  world  in  its  execration  of  slavery  to 
take  place  without  design.  This  great  battle  with  the 
abolitionists  has  not  been  fought  in  vain.  The  luuster  of 
such  immense  forces,  the  fury  of  bitterness  of  the  conflict, 
the  disparity  in  resources  of  the  parties  in  the  war,  and 
the  conspicuousness — the  unexampled  conspicuousness  of 
the  event — have  all  been  ordered  for  wise  and  benelicent 
results ;  and  when  the  smoke  shall  have  rolled  away,  it 
will  be  seen  that  a  real  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
practical  solution  of  the  problems  which  produced  the 
collision." 

"What  disasters,"  he  continued,  "we  must  pass  through 
before  the  nations  can  be  taught  the  lessons  of  providence, 
what  horrors  are  to  be  experienced,  no  human  sagacity  can 
foresee.  But  that  this  world  is  now  the  theatre  of  an  ex- 
traordinary conflict  of  great  principles,  that  the  founda- 
tions of  society  are  about  to  be  explored  to  their  depths, 
and  the  sources  of  social  and  political  prosperity  laid 
bare;  that  the  questions  in  dispute  involve  all  that  is 
dear  and  precious  to  man  on  earth,  the  most  superficial 
observer  cannot  fail  to  perceive.  Experiment  after  ex- 
periment may  be  made,  disaster  succeed  disaster,  in 
carrying  out  the  principles  of  an  atheistic  philosophy, 
until  the  nations,  wearied  and  heart-sickened  with 
changes  without  improvement,  shall  open  their  eyes  to 
the  real  causes  of  their  calamities.  God  will  vindicate 
the  appointments  of  his  providence ;  and,  if  our  institu- 
tions are  indeed  consistent  with  righteousness  and  truth, 
we  can  calmly  afford  to  bide  our  time.  If  our  principles 
are  true,  the  world  must  come  to  them.  It  is  not  the  nar- 
row question  of  abolitionism  or  of  slavery,  not  simply 
whether  we  shall  emancipate  our  negroes  or  not ;  the  real 
question  is,  the  relations  of  man  to  society,  of  States  to 
the  individual,  and  of  the  individual  to  States,  a  question 
as  broad  as  the  interests  of  the  human  race.  These  are  the 
mighty  questions  which  are  shaking  thrones  to  their 
centres,  upheaving  the  masses  like  an  earthquake,  and 


180  MY  LIFE  AKD  TIMES. 

rocking  the  solid  pillars  of  this  Union.  The  parties  in 
this  conflict  are  not  merely  abolitionists  and  slaveholders  ; 
they  are  Atheists,  Socialists,  Communists,  Red  Repub- 
licans, Jacobins  on  the  one  side,  and  the  friends  of  order 
and  regulated  freedom  on  the  other.  In  one  word,  the 
world  is  the  battle-ground,  Christianity  and  atheism  the 
combatants,  and  the  progress  of  humanity  the  stake.  One 
party  seems  to  regard  society,  with  all  its  complicated  in- 
terests, its  divisions  and  subdivisions,  as  the  machinery 
of  man,  which,  as  it  has  been  invented  and  arranged  by 
his  ingenuity  and  skill,  may  be  taken  to  pieces,  recon- 
structed, altered  or  repaired,  as  experience  shall  indicate 
defects  or  confusion  in  the  original  plan.  The  other  party 
beholds  in  it  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  contemplates  'this 
little  scene  of  human  life'  as  placed  in  the  middle  of  a 
scheme,  whose  beginnings  must  be  traced  to  the  unfath- 
omable depths  of  the  past,  and  whose  development  and 
completion  must  be  sought  in  the  still  more  unfathomable 
depths  of  the  future — a  scheme,  as  Butler  expresses  it, 
'not  fixed,  but  progressive,  every  way  incomprehensible,' 
in  which,  consequently,  irregularity  is  the  confession  of 
our  ig-norance,  disorder  the  proof  of  our  blindness,  and 
with  which  it  is  as  awful  temerity  to  tamper  as  to  sport 
with  the  name  of  God." 

Dr.  Thornwell  continues,  "The  part,  accordingly,  which 
is  assigned  to  us  in  the  tumult  of  the  age,  is  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  principles  upon  which  the  security  of  social 
order  and  the  development  of  humanity  depends,  in  their 
application  to  the  distinctive  institutions  which  have 
provoked  u])on  us  the  malediction  of  the  world.  The 
apostle  bri(?fiy  sums  up  all  that  is  incumbent,  at  the  pres- 
ent crisis,  upon  the  slaveholders  of  the  South,  in  the  preg- 
nant text,  "Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is 
just  and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  master  in 
heaven." 

It  is  not  my  ]:)urpose  to  present  the  whole  of  this  mag- 
nificent discourse,  but  only  its  chief  parts,  yet  I  shall  en- 
deavor not  to  break  the  continuity  of  Dr.  Thornwell's 
thought.  He  points  out  how  manifestly  it  is  slaves,  not 
mere  servants,  whom  the  apostle  is  addressing.  Finding 
it  impossible  to  deny  that  slavery  is  an  element  of  society. 


FIVE  YEARS^  WORK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  181 

is  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  our  enemies  ad- 
mit that  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures  is  in  our  favor,  but 
that  their  spirit  is  against  us.  He  proceeds  to  expose 
the  confusion  of  ideas  from  which  this  distinction  be- 
tween the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  has  arisen. 
This  confusion  has  arisen,  he  says,  from  a  two-fold  mis- 
apprehension :  one,  in  relation  to  the  nature  of  the 
slavery  tolerated  in  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
other  in  relation  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity  itself. 

1.  It  is  common  to  describe  the  slavery  which  the  letter 
of  the  Scriptures  tolerates,  as  the  property  of  man  in  man, 
as  the  destruction  of  all  human  and  personal  rights,  the 
absorption  of  the  humanity  of  one  individual  into  the 
will  and  power  of  another.  "The  very  idea  of  a  slave," 
says  Dr.  Channing,  "is  that  he  belongs  to  another;  he  is 
bound  to  live  and  labor  for  another,  to  be  another's  in- 
strument, and  to  make  another's  will  his  habitual  law, 
however  adverse  to  his  own."  "We  have  thus,"  says  he 
in  another  place,  "established  the  reality  and  sacredness 
of  human  rights,  and  that  slavery  is  an  infraction  of  these, 
it  is  too  plain  to  need  any  labored  proof.  Slavery  violates 
not  one,  but  all,  and  violates  them  not  incidentally,  but 
necessarily,  systematically,  from  its  very  nature."  In 
other  words,  in  every  system  of  slavery,  from  the  opera- 
tion of  its  inherent  and  essential  principles,  the  slave 
ceases  to  be  a  person,  a  man,  and  becomes  a  mere  instru- 
ment or  thing.  Dr.  Channing  does  not  charge  this  result 
upon  the  relation  as  it  obtains  under  particular  codes  or 
at  particular  times  or  in  particular  places.  He  says,  dis- 
tinctly and  emphatically,  that  it  violates  all  human  rights, 
not  incidentally^  but  necessarily,  systematically,  from  its 
very  nature.  It  belongs  to  the  very  essence  of  slavery  to 
divest  its  victims  of  humanity. 

"Slavery,"  says  Professor  Whewell,  "is  contrary  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  morality.  It  neglects  the  great 
primary  distinction  of  Persons  and  Things,  converting  a 
person  into  a  thing,  an  object  merely  passive,  without  any 
recognized  attributes  of  human  nature.  A  slave  is,  in  the 
eye  of  the  State  which  stamps  him  with  that  character, 
not  acknowledged  as  a  man.  His  pleasures  and  pains,  his 
wishes  and  desires,  his  needs  and  springs  of  action,  his 


182  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tliouglits  and  feelings,  are  of  no  value  whatever  in  the  eye 
of  the  community.  He  is  reduced  to  the  level  of  the 
brutes.  Even  his  crimes,  as  we  have  said,  are  not  ac- 
knowledged as  wrongs,  lest  it  should  be  supi)osed  that,  as 
he  may  do  a  wrong,  he  may  suffer  one.  And  as  there  are 
for  him  no  wrongs,  because  there  are  no  rights,  so  there 
is  for  him  nothing  morally  right,  that  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
nothing  conformable  to  the  Supreme  Eule  of  Human 
jSTature ;  for  the  Supreme  Eule  of  his  condition  is  the  will 
of  his  master.  He  is  thus  divested  of  his  moral  nature, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  great  principle  we  have  already 
laid  down:  that  all  men  are  moral  beings,  a  principle 
which,  we  have  seen,  is  one  of  the  universal  truths  of 
morality,  whether  it  be  taken  as  a  principle  of  justice  or 
of  humanity.  It  is  a  principle  of  justice  depending  upon 
the  participation  of  all  in  a  common  humanity;  it  is  a 
principle  of  humanity  as  authoritative  and  cogent  as  the 
fundamental  idea  of  justice." 

"If  this  be  a  just  description  of  slavery,"  says  Dr. 
Thornwell,  "the  wonder  is  not  that  the  civilized  world  is 
now  indignant  at  its  outrages  and  wrongs,  but  that  it  has 
been  so  slow  in  detecting  its  enormities,  that  mankind, 
for  so  many  centuries,  acquiesced  in  a  system  which  con- 
tradicted every  impulse  of  nature,  every  whisper  of  con- 
science, every  dictate  of  religion,  a  system  as  monstrously 
unnatural  as  a  general  effort  to  walk  upon  the  head  or 
think  with  the  feet.  We  have,  however,  no  hesitation  in 
saying  that,  whatever  may  be  the  technical  language  of 
the  law  in  relation  to  certain  aspects  in  which  slavery  is 
contemplated,  the  ideas  of  personal  rights  and  personal 
responsibility  pervade  the  whole  system.  It  is  a  relation 
of  man  to  man,  a  form  of  civil  society,  of  which  persons 
are  the  only  elements,  and  not  a  relation  of  man  to  things. 
Under  the  Roman  code,  in  which  more  offensive  language 
than  that  employed  by  ourselves  was  used  in  reference  to 
the  subject,  the  apostles  did  not  regard  the  personality  of 
the  slave  as  lost  or  swallowed  up  in  the  propriety  of  the 
master.  They  treat  him  as  a  man  possessed  of  certain 
rights  which  it  was  injustice  to  disregard,  and  make  it  the 
office  of  Christianity  to  protect  these  rights  by  the  solemn 
sanctions  of  religion,  to  enforce  upon  masters  the  neces- 


FIVE  YEAES'  WOEK  AMONG  THE  NEGEOES.  183 

sity,  the  moral  obligation,  of  rendering  to  their  bondmen 
that  which  is  just  and  equal.  Paul  treats  the  services  of 
slaves  as  duties,  not  like  the  toil  of  the  ox  or  the  ass,  a 
labor  exacted  by  the  stringency  of  discipline,  but  a 
moral  debt,  in  the  payment  of  which  they  were  render- 
ing a  homage  to  God.  'Servants,'  says  he,  'be  obedient  to 
them  that  are  your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with 
fear  and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your  heart  as  unto 
Christ;  not  with  eye-service,  as  men  pleasers,  but  as  the 
servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from  the  heart ; 
with  good  will  doing  service  as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to 
men ;  knowing  that  whatever  good  thing  any  man  doeth, 
the  same  shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord,  whether  he  be  bond 
or  free.'  We  need  not  say  to  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  very  elements  of  moral  philosophy  that  obedi- 
ence, except  as  a  figured  term,  can  never  be  applied  to 
any  but  rational,  intelligent,  responsible  agents.  It  is  a 
voluntary  homage  to  law,  implied  moral  obligation  and  a 
sense  of  duty,  and  can  only,  in  the  way  of  analogy,  be 
affirmed  of  the  instinctive  submission  of  brutes,  or  the 
mechanical  employment  of  instruments  and  things. 

"The  apostle,"  Dr.  Thornwell  continues,  "not  merely 
recognizes  the  moral  agency  of  slaves  in  the  phraseology 
which  he  uses,  but  treats  them  as  possessed  of  conscience, 
reason  and  will  by  the  motives  which  he  presses.  He  says 
to  them,  in  effect,  that  their  services  to  their  masters  are 
duties  which  they  owe  to  God,  that  a  moral  character  at- 
taches to  their  works,  and  that  they  are  the  subjects  of 
praise  or  blame,  according  to  the  principles  upon  which 
their  obedience  is  rendered.  'The  blind  passivity  of  a 
corpse,  or  the  mechanical  subserviency  of  a  tool,'  which 
Dr.  Channing  and  Professor  Whewell  regard  as  consti- 
tuting the  very  essence  of  every  system  of  slavery,  pre- 
cluding, as  it  does,  every  idea  of  merit  or  demerit,  of 
approbation  or  of  censure,  never  seems  to  have  entered 
the  head  of  the  apostle.  He  considered  slavery  as  a  social 
and  political  economy,  in  which  relations  subsisted  be- 
twixt moral,  intelligent,  responsil)le  beings,  involving 
reciprocal  rights  and  reciprocal  obligations.  There  was 
a  right  to  command,  on  the  one  hand,  an  obligation  to 
obey,  on  the  other.     Both  parties  might  be  guilty  of  in- 


184  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

justice  and  of  wrong ;  the  master  might  prostitute  his 
power  by  tyranny,  cruelty  and  iniquitous  exactions ;  the 
servant  might  evade  his  duty  from  indolence,  treachery 
or  obstinate  self-will.  Religion  held  the  scales  of  justice 
between  them,  and  enforced  fidelity  upon  each  by  the 
awful  sanctions  of  eternity.  This  was  clearly  the  aspect 
in  which  the  apostle  contemplated  the  subject. 

'^^The  state  of  things,"  Dr.  Thornwell  says,  "so  graphi- 
cally described  and  eloquently  deplored  by  the  great 
father  of  Unitarian  Christianity  in  America,  is  a  pal- 
pable impossibility.  The  constitution  of  the  human  mind 
is  in  flagrant  contradiction  to  the  absorption  of  the  con- 
science, will  and  understanding  of  one  man  into  the  per- 
sonality of  another ;  it  is  a  thing  which  cannot  be  con- 
ceived, and,  if  it  ever  could  take  place,  the  termination  of 
all  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  slave  would  render  it 
ridiculous  to  labor  for  his  spiritual  improvement,  or  at- 
tribute to  him  any  other  immortality  than  that  which 
Indian  fables  ascribe  to  the  dog  as  the  faithful  companion 
of  his  master.  And  yet  upon  this  absurdity,  that  slavery 
divests  its  victims  of  humanity,  that  it  degrades  them 
from  the  rank  of  responsible  and  voluntary  agents  to  the 
condition  of  tools  or  brutes,  the  whole  philosophical  argu- 
ment against  the  morality  of  the  system,  as  an  existing 
institution,  is  founded. 

"The  property  of  man  in  man,  a  fiction  to  which  even 
the  imagination  cannot  give  consistency,  is  the  miserable 
cant  of  those  who  would  storm  by  prejudice  what  they 
cannot  demolish  by  argument.  We  do  not  even  pretend 
that  the  organs  of  the  body  can  be  said  strictly  to  belong 
to  another.  The  limbs  and  members  of  my  servant  are 
not  mine,  but  his ;  they  are  not  tools  and  instruments 
which  1  can  sport  with  at  pleasure,  but  the  sacred  posses- 
sions of  a  human  being,  which  cannot  be  invaded  without 
the  authority  of  law,  and  for  the  use  of  which  he  can 
never  be  divested  of  his  responsibility  to  God. 

"If,  then,  slavery  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  existence 
of  personal  rights  and  of  moral  obligation,  it  may  be 
asked,  in  what  does  its  peculiarity  consist  ?  What  is  it 
that  makes  a  man  a  slave  ?  We  answer,  the  obligation  to 
labor  for  another,  determined  by  the  providence  of  God, 


FIVE  years'  WOKK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  185 

independentlv  of  the  provisions  of  a  contract.  The  right 
which  the  master  has  is  a  right  not  to  the  man,  but  to  his 
labor ;  the  duty  which  the  slave  owes  is  the  service  which, 
in  conformity  with  this  right,  the  master  exacts.  The 
essential  difference  betwixt  free  and  slave  labor  is  that 
one  is  rendered  in  consequence  of  a  contract,  the  other  is 
rendered  in  consequence  of  a  command.  The  laborers  in 
each  case  are  equally  moral,  equally  responsible,  equally 
men ;   but  they  work  upon  different  principles. 

"It  is  strange  that  Channiug  and  Whewell  should  have 
overlooked  the  essential  distinction  of  this  form  of  ser- 
vice, as  it  lies  patent  in  the  writings  of  philosophers  who 
preceded  them.  The  definition  given  by  Paley,  a  man 
preeminently  marked  by  perspicuity  of  thought  and 
vigor  of  expression,  is  exactly  the  same  in  spirit  with  our 
own.  In  the  actual  condition  of  society,  the  intervention 
of  a  contract  is  not  always  a  matter  of  very  great  moment, 
since  it  is  not  always  a  security  to  freedom  of  choice. 
The  providence  of  God  marks  out  for  the  slave  the  precise 
services,  in  the  lawful  commands  of  the  master,  which  it 
is  the  divine  will  that  he  should  render ;  the  painful 
necessities  of  his  case  are  often  as  stringent  upon  the  free 
laborer,  and  determined  with  as  stern  a  mandate  what 
contracts  he  shall  make.  ^Neither  can  he  be  said  to  select 
liis  emplo^Tuents.  God  allots  to  each  his  portion,  places 
the  one  immediately  under  command,  and  leaves  the  other 
not  unfrequently  a  petitioner  for  a  master. 

"Whatever  control  the  master  has  over  the  person  of 
the  slave  is  subsidiary  to  this  right  to  his  labor ;  what  he 
sells  is  not  the  man,  but  the  property  in  his  services  ;  true, 
he  chastises  the  man,  but  the  punishments  inflicted  for 
disobedience  are  no  more  inconsistent  with  personal  re- 
sponsibilities than  the  punishments  inflicted  by  the  law 
for  breaches  of  contract.  On  the  contrary,  punishment  in 
contradiction  from  sufi^ering  always  implies  responsi- 
bility, and  a  right  which  cannot  be  enforced  is  a  right 
which  society,  as  an  organized  community,  has  not  yet 
acknowledged.  The  chastisements  of  slaves  are,  accord- 
ingly, no  more  entitled  to  awaken  indignation  of  loyal 
and  faithful  citizens,  however  pretended  philanthropists 
may  describe  the  horrors  of  the  scourge  and  the  lash,  than 


186  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  penalties  of  disgrace,  imprisonment  or  death,  which 
all  nations  have  inflicted  npon  crimes  against  the  State. 
All  that  is  necessary  in  any  case  is  that  the  punishment 
should  be  just.  Pain  unrighteously  inflicted  is  cruelty, 
whether  that  cruelty  springs  from  the  tyranny  of  a  single 
master  or  the  tyranny  of  that  greater  master,  the  State. 
Whether  adequate  provisions  shall  be  made  to  protect  the 
slave  from  inhumanity  and  oppression,  whether  he  shall 
be  exempt  from  suffering,  except  for  disobedience  and  for 
crime,  are  questions  to  be  decided  by  the  law  of  the  land ; 
and,  in  this  matter,  the  codes  of  different  nations  and  of 
the  same  nation  at  different  times,  have  been  various. 
Justice  and  religion  require  that  such  provisions  should 
be  made.  It  is  no  part  of  the  essence  of  slavery,  however, 
that  the  rights  of  the  slave  should  be  left  to  the  caprice  or 
to  the  interest  of  the  master ;  and  in  the  Southern  States 
provisions  are  actually  made — whether  adequate  or  inad- 
equate, it  is  useless  here  to  discuss — to  protect  him  from 
want,  cruelty  and  unlawful  domination.  Provisions  are 
made  which  recognize  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle,  that  he 
is  a  subject  of  rights,  and  that  justice  must  be  rendered  to 
his  claims.  When  slavery  is  pronounced  to  be  essentially 
sinful,  the  argument  cannot  turn  upon  incidental  circum- 
stances of  this  system,  upon  the  defective  arrangement 
of  the  details,  the  inadequate  securities  which  tJie  law 
awards  against  infringement  of  acknowledged  rights ;  it 
must  turn  upon  the  nature  of  the  relation  itself,  and  must 
boldly  attempt  to  prove  that  he  ceases  to  be  a  man  who  is 
under  obligation,  without  the  formalities  of  a  contract,  to 
labor  under  the  direction  and  for  the  benefit  of  another. 
If  such  a  position  is  inconsistent  with  the  essential  ele- 
ments of  humanity,  then  slavery  is  inhuman ;  if  society, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  distinctly  recognized  the  contrary 
as  essential  to  good  order,  as  in  the  case  of  children,  ap- 
prentices and  criminals,  then  slavery  is  consistent  with 
the  rights  of  man,  and  the  pathetic  declamation  of  aboli- 
tionists falls  to  the  groimd. 

"This  view  of  this  subject  exposes  the  confusion,  which 
obtains  in  most  popular  treatises  of  morals,  of  slavery 
with  involuntary  servitude.  The  service,  in  so  far  as  it 
consists  in  the  motions  of  the  limbs  or  organs  of  the  body. 


FIVE  YEAES^  WOEK  AMOXG  THE  XEGEOES.  187 

must  be  voluntary,  or  it  could  not  exist  at  all.  If  by  vol- 
untary be  meant,  however,  that  which  results  from 
hearty  consent,  and  is,  accordingly,  rendered  with  cheer- 
fulness, it  is  precisely  the  service  which  the  law  of  God 
enjoins.  Servants  are  exhorted  to  obey,  from  considera- 
tions of  duty,  to  make  conscience  of  their  tasks,  with  good 
will  doing  service  as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to  men. 
Whether,  in  point  of  fact,  their  service  in  this  sense  shall 
be  voluntary  will  depend  upon  their  moral  character.  But 
the  same  may  be  said  of  free  labor.  There  are  other  mo- 
tives beside  the  lash  that  may  drive  men  to  toil,  when  they 
are  far  from  toiling  with  cheerfulness  or  good  will. 
Others  groan  under  their  burdens  as  well  as  slaves,  and 
many  a  man  who  works  by  contract  is  doomed  to  an  in- 
voluntary servitude,  which  he  as  thoroughly  detests  as  the 
most  faithless  slave  who  performs  nothing  but  the  painful 
drudgery  of  eye-service.  There  is  a  moral  bondage,  the 
most  galling  and  degrading  species  of  servitude,  in  which 
he  may  be  held,  as  with  chains  of  brass,  who  scorns  to  call 
any  man  master  on  earth." 

Dr.  Thornwell  here  proceeds  to  say,  "There  is  a  free- 
dom which  is  the  end  and  glory  of  man,  the  only  freedom 
which  the  pen  of  inspiration  has  commended.  It  is  the 
freedom  which  God  approves,  which  Jesus  bought  by  his 
blood,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  seals  effectually  by  his  grace ; 
the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free.  It  con- 
sists essentially  in  the  dominion  of  rectitude,  in  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  will  from  the  power  of  sin,  the  release  of 
the  affections  from  the  attractions  of  earth,  the  exemption 
of  the  understanding  from  the  deceits  of  prejudice  and 
error.  It  is  a  freedom  which  the  truth  of  God  brings 
with  it,  a  freedom  enjoyed  by  the  martyr  at  the  stake,  a 
slave  in  his  chains,  a  prisoner  in  his  dungeon,  as  well  as 
the  king  upon  his  throne.  Independent  of  time  or  place, 
or  the  accidents  of  fortune,  it  is  the  breath  of  the  soul  as 
regenerated  and  redeemed,  and  can  no  more  be  torn 
from  us  than  the  atmosphere  of  heaven  can  be  restrained. 
'If  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  you  shall  be  free  indeed.' 
This  freedom  makes  man  truly  a  man ;  and  it  is  precisely 
the  assertion  of  this  freedom,  this  dominion  of  rectitude, 
this  supremacy  of  right,  which  the  apostle  enjoins  upon 


188  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

slaves  when  he  exhorts  them  to  obey  their  masters,  in  sin- 
gleness of  heart,  as  imto  Christ,  to  despise  eye-service,  and 
to  do  their  work  as  in  the  eye  of  God.  To  obey,  under  the 
inflnence  of  these  motives,  is  to  be  slaves  no  longer.  This 
is  a  free  service,  a  service  which  God  accepts  as  the  loyal 
homage  of  the  soul,  and  which  proclaims  them  to  be  the 
Lord's  freemen,  while  they  honor  their  masters  on  earth. 
Such  slavery  might  be  their  glory,  might  fit  them  for 
thrones  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  So  far  was  the  apostle, 
therefore,  from  regarding  involuntary  servitude  as  the 
characteristic  of  slavery  that  he  condemned  such  servitude 
as  a  sin.  He  treats  it  as  something  that  is  abject,  mean, 
despicable;  but  insists,  on  the  other  hand,  that  slavery 
dignifies  and  ennobles  the  servant  who  obeys  from  the 
heart." 

2.  Dr.  Thornwell  now  takes  up  the  question  whether, 
admitting  that  slavery  is  not  absolutely  inconsistent  with 
moral  responsibility,  it  yet  does  not  strip  the  slave  of  some 
of  the  rights  which  belong  to  him  essentially  as  a  man; 
and  whether  slavery  is  not,  in  this  view,  incompatible 
with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  This  question,  he  says,  com- 
prises the  whole  moral  difficulty  of  slavery.  It  is  at  this 
point  that  the  friends  and  enemies  of  the  system  are 
equally  tempted  to  run  into  extravagance  and  excess,  the 
one  party  denying  the  inestimable  value  of  freedom,  the 
other  exaggerating  the  nature  and  extent  of  human  rights, 
and  both  overlooking  the  real  scope  and  purpose  of  the 
gospel  in  relation  to  the  present  interests  of  man. 

That  the  design  of  Christianity  is  to  secure  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  race  is  obvious  from  all  its  arrangements,  and 
that,  when  this  end  shall  have  been  consummated,  slavery 
must  cease  to  exist,  is  equally  clear.  This  is  only  assert- 
ing there  will  be  no  bondage  in  heaven.  If  Adam  had 
never  sinned  and  brought  death  into  the  world  with  all 
our  woe,  the  bondage  of  man  to  man  would  never  have 
been  instituted ;  and  Avhen  the  effects  of  transgression 
shall  have  been  purged  from  the  earth,  all  bondage  shall 
be  abolished.  In  this  sense  slavery  is  inconsistent  with 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  viz.,  that  it  contemplates  a  state 
of  things,  an  existing  economy,  which  it  is  the  design  of 
the  gospel    to    remove.     Slavery  is  a  part  of  the  curse 


FIVE  YEAKS"  WOKK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  189 

Avhicli  sin  has  introduced  into  the  world,  and  stands  in  the 
same  general  relations  to  Christianity  as  poverty,  sick- 
ness, disease  or  death.  In  other  words,  it  is  a  relation 
which  can  only  be  conceived  as  taking  place  among  fallen 
beings  tainted  with  a  curse.  It  springs,  not  from  the 
nature  of  man  as  man,  nor  from  the  nature  of  society  as 
such,  but  from  the  nature  of  man  as  sinful  and  the  nature 
of  society  as  disordered. 

Upon  an  earth  radiant  with  the  smile  of  heaven,  or  in 
the  paradise  of  God,  we  can  no  more  picture  the  figure  of 
a  slave  than  we  can  picture  the  figures  of  the  halt,  the 
maimed,  the  lame  and  the  blind ;  we  can  no  more  fancy 
the  existence  of  masters  and  tasks  than  we  can  dream  of 
hospitals  and  beggars.  These  are  the  badges  of  a  fallen 
world.  That  it  is  inconsistent  with  a  perfect  state,  that 
it  is  not  absolutely  a  good,  a  blessing,  the  most  strenuous 
defender  of  slavery  ought  not  to  permit  himself  to  deny ; 
and  the  devout  believer  in  revelation  would  be  mad  to 
close  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  form  in  which  it  is  first 
threatened  in  the  Bible  is  as  a  punishment  for  crime.  It 
is  a  natural  evil  which  God  has  visited  upon  society,  be- 
cause man  kept  not  his  first  estate,  but  fell,  and,  under 
the  gospel,  is  turned,  like  all  other  natural  evils,  into  the 
means  of  an  effective  spiritual  discipline.  The  gospel 
does  not  propose  to  make  our  present  state  a  perfect  one, 
to  make  our  earth  a  heaven.  Here  is  where  the  philan- 
thropists mistake. 

Admit,  then,  that  slavery  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel  as  that  spirit  is  to  find  its  full  development 
in  a  state  of  glory,  yet  the  conclusion  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel, 
as  that  spirit  operates  among  rebels  and  sinners  in  a  de- 
graded world,  and  under  a  dispensation  of  grace.  The 
real  question  is,  whether  it  is  incompatible  with  the 
spiritual  prosperity  of  individuals,  or  the  general  progress 
and  education  of  society.  It  is  clearly  the  office  of  the 
gospel  to  train  men,  by  virtue  of  the  discipline  of  tempta- 
tion, hardship  and  evil,  for  a  state  of  perfection  and 
glory.  ISTothing  is  inconsistent  with  it  which  does  not 
present  obstacles  to  the  practice  of  duty,  which  its  own 
grace  is  inadequate  to  surmount.     Whoever,  therefore, 


190  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

would  maintain  that  slavery  is  incompatible  with  the 
present  relations  of  the  gospel  to  man,  must  maintain  that 
it  preelndes  him,  by  its  very  natnre,  from  the  discharge 
of  some  of  the  duties  which  the  gospel  enjoins.  It  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose  to  speak  of  it  generally  and 
vaguely  as  an  evil ;  it  must  be  shown  to  be  an  evil  of  that 
specific  kind  which  necessitates  the  commission  of  sin  and 
the  neglect  of  duty.  Neither  is  it  sufScient  to  say  that  it 
presents  strong  temptations  to  sin,  in  the  violent  motives 
which  a  master  may  press  upon  a  slave  to  execute  unlaw- 
ful commands.  This  can  be  affirmed  of  numberless  other 
situations  in  which  none  will  contend  that  it  is  unlawful 
to  be  foun(h_  The  question  is,  not  whether  it  is  the  state 
most  favorable  to  the  offices  of  piety  and  virtue,  but 
whether  it  is  essentially  incompatible  with  their  exercise. 
This  is  the  true  issue. 

The  fundamental  mistake  of  those  who  affirm  slavery 
to  be  essentially  sinful,  is  that  the  duties  of  all  men  are 
specifically  the  same.  Though  they  do  not  state  the  prop- 
osition in  so  many  words,  and,  in  its  naked  form,  would 
probably  dissent  from  it,  yet  a  little  attention  to  their 
reason  puts  it  beyond  doubt,  that  this  is  the  radical  as- 
sumption upon  which  they  proceed,  all  men  are  bound  to 
do  specifically  the  same  things.  As  there  are,  obviously, 
duties  of  some  men,  in  some  relations,  which  cannot  be 
])ractised  by  a  slave,  they  infer  that  the  institution  strips 
him  of  his  rights,  and  curtails  the  fair  proportions  of  his 
humanity.  The  argument,  fully  and  legitimately  carried 
out,  would  condemn  every  arrangement  of  society  which 
did  not  secure  to  all  its  members  an  absolute  equality  of 
position;  it  is  the  very  spirit  of  socialism  and  commun- 
ism. 

IS^ow,  unless  slavery  is  incompatible  with  the  habitudes 
of  holiness,  unless  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  phil- 
anthropy or  the  spirit  of  piety,  unless  it  furnishes  no 
opportunities  for  obedience  to  the  law,  it  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  pursuit  or  attainment  of  the  highest 
excellence.  It  is  no  al)ridgment  of  moral  freedom ;  the 
slave  may  come  from  the  probation  of  his  circumstances 
as  fully  stamped  with  the  image  of  God  as  those  who  have 
enjoyed  an  easier  lot ;   he  may  be  as  completely  in  unison 


FIVE  YEAES"  WORK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  191 

with  the  spirit  of  universal  rectitude  as  if  he  had  been 
trained  on  flowery  beds  of  ease.  Let  him  discharge  his 
whole  duty  in  the  actual  circumstances  of  his  case,  and 
he  is  entitled  to  the  praise  of  a  perfect  and  an  upright 
man.  The  question  with  God  is,  not  what  he  has  done, 
but  how.  Man  looketh  at  the  outward  circumstances,  but 
God  looketh  at  the  heart.  Hence  those  moralists  are 
grievously  in  error  who  have  represented  slavery  as  in- 
consistent with  the  full  complement  of  human  duty. 

ISTo  proposition  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  rights  of 
man  must  be  ultimately  traced  to  his  duties,  and  are 
nothing  more  than  the  obligations  of  his  fellows  to  let  him 
alone  in  the  discharge  of  all  the  functions,  and  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  the  blessings  of  his  lot.  Whatever  puts  an 
obstruction  or  hindrance  to  the  complement  of  his  duties, 
is  an  encroachment  upon  the  complement  of  his  rights  as 
a  man.  Whatever  is  incompatible  with  the  exercise  of  his 
moral  nature,  is  destructive  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
his  being.  But,  as  the  moral  discipline  of  man  is  con- 
sistent with  the  greatest  variety  of  external  condition,  it 
is  consistent  with  the  greatest  variety  of  contingent  rights, 
of  rights  which  spring  from  peculiar  circumstances  and 
peculiar  relations,  and  in  the  absence  of  which  a  man  may 
still  be  a  man.  These  cannot  be  treated  as  a  fixed  and 
invariable  quantity.  Dependent  as  they  are  upon  our 
duties,  which,  in  turn,  are  dependent  upon  our  circum- 
stances, they  fluctuate  with  the  gradations  and  progress  of 
society,  being  wider  or  narrower,  according  to  the  spheres 
in  which  we  move.  It  is  only  by  postulating  duties  for 
the  slave  which  God  has  not  enjoined  on  him,  that  any 
show  of  decency  can  be  given  to  the  declamations  against 
the  robbery  and  fraud  which  have  incapacitated  him  to 
perform  them.  The  slave  has  rights,  all  the  rights  which 
belong  essentially  to  humanity,  and  without  which  his 
nature  could  not  be  human  or  his  conduct  susceptible  of 
praise  or  blame.  In  the  enjoyment  of  these  rights,  relig- 
ion demands  that  he  should  be  protected. 

But,  then,  there  are  rights  which  belong  to  men  in  other 
situations,  to  which  he  is  by  no  means  entitled,  the  rights 
of  the  citizen,  for  example,  and  the  free  member  of  the 
commonwealth.     They  are  not  his,  for  the  simple  reason 


192  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

that  they  are  not  essential,  but  contingent ;  they  do  not 
spring  from  humanity,  simply  considered,  for  then  they 
would  belong  to  women  and  children,  but  from  humanity 
in  such  and  such  relations. 

As  to  the  influence  of  slavery  upon  the  advancement  of 
society,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  if  the  government  of  God 
be  moral,  that  the  true  progress  of  communities  and 
States,  as  well  as  the  highest  interests  of  individuals,  de- 
pends upon  the  fidelity  with  which  the  duties  are  dis- 
charged injevery  condition  of  life.  It  is  the  great  law  of 
providential  education  that,  "to  every  one  that  hath  shall 
be  given,  and  he  shall  have  abundance ;  but  from  him  that 
hath  not  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath." 
In  this  way  the  reign  of  universal  justice  is  promoted, 
and,  wherever  that  obtains,  the  development  of  the  indi- 
vidual, which  is  the  great  end  of  all  social  and  political 
institutions,  must  infallibly  take  place.  The  prosperity 
of  the  State,  at  the  same  time,  is  secured,  and  secured,  too, 
without  the  necessity  of  sudden  changes  or  violent  revolu- 
tions. It  will  be  like  the  vigor  of  a  healthful  body,  in 
which  all  the  limbs  and  organs  perform  their  appropriate 
functions  without  collision  or  tumult,  and  its  ascension 
to  a  high  degree  of  moral  elevation  will  be  like  the  growth 
of  such  a  body,  silent  and  imperceptible,  the  natural  re- 
sult of  the  blessing  of  God  upon  the  means  he  has  ap- 
pointed. Let  masters  and  servants,  each  in  their  re- 
spective spheres,  be  impregnated  with  the  principle  of 
duty ;  let  masters  resolve  to  render  unto  their  servants  that 
which  is  just  and  equal,  never  transcending  the  legitimate 
bounds  of  their  authority,  and  servants  resolve  to  cherish 
sentiments  of  reverence  for  their  masters  according  to 
the  flesh,  never  falling  short  of  the  legitimate  claims  on 
their  obedience,  and  the  chief  good  of  each,  as  individuals 
and  as  men,  will  be  most  surely  promoted,  while  each  will 
contribute  an  important  share  to  the  strength  and  stability 
of  the  commonwealth.  The  feet  are  as  indispensable  to 
the  head  as  the  head  to  the  feet.  The  social  fabric  is 
made  up  of  divers  ingredients,  and  the  cement  which 
binds  them  together  in  durability  and  unity  is  the  cement 
of  justice. 

Beside  the  arguments  drawn  from  considerations  of 


FIVE  YEAKS"  WORK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  193 

justice  and  the  essential  rights  of  humanity,  the  incom- 
patibility of  slavery  with  the  spirit  and  temper  of  the 
gospel  is  not  unf requently  attempted  to  be  made  out  from 
the  injunction  of  the  Saviour  to  love  our  neighbor  as  our- 
selves, and  to  do  unto  others  as  we  would  have  them  do 
unto  us.  The  principle,  however,  upon  which  the  precept 
of  universal  benevolence  is  interpreted,  in  this  case, 
makes  it  the  sanction  of  the  grossest  wickedness.  If  we 
are  to  regulate  our  conduct  to  others  by  the  arbitrary 
expectations  which,  in  their  circumstances,  our  passions 
and  selfishness  might  prompt  us  to  indulge,  there  ceases 
to  be  any  other  standard  of  morality  than  caprice.  The 
humor  of  every  man  becomes  law.  The  judge  could  not 
condemn  the  criminal  nor  the  executioner  behead  him ; 
the  rich  man  could  not  claim  his  possessions  nor  the  poor 
learn  patience  from  their  sufferings.  If  I  am  bound  to 
emancipate  my  slave,  because,  if  the  tables  were  turned, 
and  our  situations  reversed,  I  should  covet  this  boon  from 
him,  I  should  be  bound,  upon  the  same  principle,  to  pro- 
mote my  indigent  neighbors  around  me  to  an  absolute 
equality  with  myself.  That  neither  the  Jews,  in  whose 
law  the  precept  was  first  formally  announced,  nor  the 
apostles,  to  whom  it  was  more  fully  expounded  by  the 
Saviour,  ever  applied  it  in  the  sense  of  the  abolitionists,  is 
a  strong  presumption  against  their  mode  of  interpreta- 
tion. The  truth  is,  the  precept  is  simply  the  inculcation 
of  justice  from  motives  of  love.  Our  Saviour  directs  us 
to  do  unto  others  what,  in  their  situations,  it  would  be 
right  and  reasonable  in  us  to  expect  from  them.  We  are 
to  put  ourselves  in  their  situations,  that  we  may  duly 
weigh  the  circumstances  of  their  case,  and  so  be  prepared 
to  apply  to  it  the  principles  of  universal  justice.  We  are 
to  let  no  motives  of  indolence,  ease  or  apathy  ]3revent  us 
from  considering  their  condition.  We  are  to  take  the 
same  interest  in  them  that  we  would  take  in  ourselves, 
and  are  to  extend  to  them  the  same  protection  of  the 
divine  law  which  we  would  insist  upon  for  ourselves. 
The  rule,  then,  simply  requires,  in  the  case  of  slavery, 
that  we  should  treat  our  slaves  as  we  should  feel  that  we 
had  a  right  to  be  treated  if  we  were  slaves  ourselves ;  it 
is  only  enforcing,  by  benevolence,  the  apostolic  injunc- 


194  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tion,  "Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just 
and  equal."  Do  right,  in  other  v^ords,  as  you  would  claim 
right. 

The  instances  which  are  usually  urged  to  prove  that 
slavery  is  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  man,  unfortu- 
nately for  the  argument,  are  not  peculiar  to  slavery. 
They  are  incidents  of  poverty  wherever  it  prevails  in  a 
distressing  form ;  and  a  wise  system  of  legislation  could 
much  more  easily  detach  them  from  the  system  of  slavery 
than  from  the  deep  indigence  which  is  sure  to  crush  the 
laborer  where  a  crowded  population  obtains.  They  are, 
at  best,  only  abuses,  in  the  one  case,  which  might  be  cor- 
rected, while  in  the  other  they  seem  to  be  inseparable 
elements. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  the  popular  argument 
against  slavery  drawn  from  the  fact,  that,  as  it  must  have 
begun  in  the  perpetration  of  grievous  ^\Tong,  no  lapse  of 
time  can  make  it  subsequently  right — prescription  can 
never  sanctify  injustice.  The  answer  turns  upon  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  wrong  itself  and  the  effects  of  the 
wrong.  The  criminal  act,  whatever  it  may  have  been,  by 
which  a  man  was  reduced  to  the  condition  of  bondage,  can 
never  cease  to  be  otherwise  than  criminal,  but  the  rela- 
tions to  which  that  act  gave  rise  may,  themselves,  be  con- 
sistent with  the  will  of  God,  and  the  foundation  of  new 
and  important  duties.  The  relations  of  a  man  to  his 
natural  offspring,  though  wickedly  formed,  give  rise  to 
duties  which  would  be  ill-discharged  by  the  destruction 
of  the  child.  No  doubt  the  principle  upon  which  slavery 
has  been  most  largely  engrafted  into  society  as  an  integral 
element  of  its  com})lex  constitution — the  princi])lo  that 
captivity  in  war  gives  a  right  to  the  life  of  a  prisoner  for 
which  his  bondage  is  accepted  in  exchange — is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  truth  of  the  case.  But  it  was  recognized 
as  true  for  ages  and  generations ;  it  was  a  step  in  the 
moral  development  of  nations,  and  has  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  institutions  and  usages  which  cannot  now  be  dis- 
turbed with  impunity,  and  in  regard  to  which  our  conduct 
must  be  regulated  by  the  fact  of  their  existence,  and  not 
by  speculation  upon  the  morality  of  their  origin.  Our 
world   exhibits   ever^^vhere   the   traces    of    sin ;    and,  if 


FIVE  years"  work  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  195' 

we  tolerate  nothing  but  what  we  may  expect  to  find  in  a 
state  of  perfection  and  holiness,  we  must  leave  this  scene 
of  sublunary  distraction.  The  education  of  States  is  a 
slow  process.  Their  standard  of  rectitude  slowly  approx- 
imates the  standard  of  God,  and  in  their  ages  of  infancy, 
ignorance  and  blindness,  they  establish  many  institutions 
upon  false  maxims,  which  cannot  subsequently  be  extir- 
pated without  abandoning  the  whole  of  the  real  progress 
they  have  made,  and  reconstituting  society  afresh.  These 
things,  moreover,  take  place  under  the  sleepless  provi- 
dence of  God,  who  is  surely  accomplishing  his  own  great 
purposes,  and  who  makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him, 
and  restrains  at  pleasure  the  remainder  of  wrath. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  slavery  is  not  repug- 
nant to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  in  its  present  relations  to 
our  race.  It  is  one  of  the  conditions  in  which  God  is 
conducting  the  moral  probation  of  man — a  condition  not 
incompatible  with  the  highest  moral  freedom,  the  true 
glory  of  the  race,  and,  therefore,  not  unfit  for  the  moral 
and  spiritual  discipline  which  Christianity  has  instituted. 
It  is  one  of  the  schools  in  which  immortal  spirits  are 
trained  for  their  final  destiny.  If  it  is  attended  with 
severer  hardships,  these  hardships  are  compensated  by 
fewer  duties,  and  the  very  violence  of  its  temptations 
gives  dignity  and  lustre  to  its  virtues.  The  slave  may  be 
fitted,  in  his  humble  and,  if  you  please,  degraded  lot,  for 
shining  as  a  star  in  the  firmament  of  heaven.  In  his 
narrow  sphere  he  may  be  cherishing  and  cultivating  a 
spirit  which  shall  render  him  meet  for  the  society  of 
angels  and  the  everlasting  enjoyment  of  God.  The  Chris- 
tian beholds  in  him,  not  a  tool,  not  a  chattel,  not  a  brute 
or  thing,  but  an  immortal  spirit,  assigned  to  a  particular 
position  in  this  world  of  -wretchedness  and  sin,  in  which 
he  is  required  to  work  out  the  destiny  which  attaches  to 
him,  in  common  with  his  fellows,  as  a  man.  He  is  an 
actor  on  the  broad  theatre  of  life ;  and,  as  true  merit  de- 
pends, not  so  much  upon  the  part  which  is  assigned  as 
upon  the  propriety  and  dignity  with  which  it  is  sustained, 
so  fidelity;  in  this  relation  may  hereafter  be  as  conspicu- 
ously rewarded  as  fidelity  in  more  exalted  stations. 
Angels  and  God  look  not  upon  the  outward  state  of  man ;. 


196  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  poverty,  rags  and  wretchedness  of  one,  the  robes,  dia- 
dems and  crowns  of  another,  are  nothiiiii'.  Tnio  worth  is 
the  moral  vesture  of  the  souL  The  spirit  of  obedience, 
the  love  of  holiness,  sympathy  with  God,  these  are  the 
things  which  make  men  beautiful  and  glorious.  This  is 
true  freedom ;  these  are  the  things  which  shall  endure 
and  flourish  with  increasing  lustre  wlicu  thrones  have 
crumbled  in  the  dust  and  republics  mouldered  among  the 
ruins  of  the  past.  ^ 

In  treating  slavery  as  an  existing  institution,  a  fact 
involving  most  important  moral  relations,  one  of  the 
prime  duties  of  the  State  is  to  protect,  by  temporal  legis- 
lation, the  real  rights  of  the  slave.  The  moral  sense  of 
the  country  acknowledges  them ;  the  religion  of  the 
country,  to  a  large  extent,  insures  their  observance ;  but, 
until  they  are  defined  by  law  and  enforced  by  penalties, 
there  is  no  adequate  protection  of  them.  They  are  in  the 
category  of  imperfect,  and  not  of  perfect,  rights.  The 
effect  of  legal  protection  would  be  to  counteract  whatever 
tendencies  to  produce  servility  and  abjectness  of  mind 
slavery  may  be  supposed  to  possess.  It  would  inspire  a 
sense  of  personal  responsibility,  a  certain  degree  of  man- 
liness and  dignity  of  character  which  would  be  at  once 
a  security  to  the  master  and  an  immense  blessing  to  the 
slave.  The  meanness,  cunning,  hypocrisy,  lying  and 
theft,  which  accompany  a  sense  of  degradation  would 
give  place  to  the  opposite  virtues,  and  there  would  be  no 
foundation  in  our  social  relations  for  that  slavery  which 
Cicero  defines,  ohedientia  fracti  animi  et  ahjecti,  et  arhi- 
trio  carentis  suo. 

In  the  different  systems  of  slavery,  taken  collectively, 
all  the  essential  rights  of  humanity  have  been  recognized 
by  law,  showing  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  relation 
itself  inconsistent  with  this  legal  protection.  The  right  to 
acquire  knowledge,  which  is  practically  admitted  by  us, 
though  legally  denied,  was  fully  recognized  by  the  Ro- 
mans, whose  slaves  were  often  the  teachers  of  their  chil- 
dren and  the  scholars  of  the  commonwealth.  The  right 
of  the  family  was  formally  protected  among  the  Span- 
iards; and  the  right  to  personal  safety  is  largely  pro- 
tected by  ourselves.     But,  without  stopping  to  inquire  in 


FIVE  YEAKS''  WOKK  AMOJN'G  THE  NEGROES.  197 

what  way  temporal  legislation  may  most  effectually  pro- 
tect the  rights  of  the  slave,  we  hesitate  not  to  affirm,  that 
one  of  the  highest  and  most  solemn  obligations  which 
rest  upon  the  masters  of  the  South  is  to  give  their  ser- 
vants, to  the  utmost  extent  of  their  ability,  free  access 
to  the  instructions  and  institutions  of  the  gospel.  The 
injustice  of  denying  to  them  food  and  raiment  and  shelter, 
against  which  the  law  effectually  guards,  is  nothing  to 
the  injustice  of  defrauding  them  of  that  bread  which 
Cometh  down  from  heaven.  Their  labor  is  ours.  From 
infancy  to  age,  they  attend  on  us ;  they  greet  our  intro- 
duction into  the  world  with  smiles  of  joy,  and  lament 
our  departure  with  a  heartfelt  sorrow;  and  every  motive 
of  humanity  and  religion  exacts  from  us  that  we  should 
remunerate  their  services  by  putting  within  their  reach 
the  means  of  securing  a  blessed  immortality.  The  mean- 
est slave  has  in  him  a  soul  of  priceless  value.  "No 
earthly  or  celestial  language  can  exaggerate  its  worth. 
Thought,  reason,  conscience,  the  capacity  of  virtue,  the 
capacity  of  Christian  love,  an  immortal  destiny,  an  inti- 
mate moral  connection  with  God — here  are  attributes  of 
our  common  humanity  which  reduce  to  insignificance  all 
outward  distinctions,  and  make  every  human  being"  a 
sublime,  an  awful  object.  That  soul  has  sinned;  it  is 
under  the  curse  of  the  Almighty,  and  nothing  can  save  it 
from  an  intolerable  hell  but  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  They  must  hear  this  joyful  sound  or 
perish.  For  "how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  have  not  heard,  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a 
preacher,  and  how  shall  they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ?" 
Our  design  in  giving  them  the  gospel  is  not  to  civilize 
them,  not  to  change  their  social  condition,  not  to  exalt 
them  into  citizens  or  freemen ;  it  is  to  save  them.  The 
church  contemplates  them  only  as  sinners,  and  she  is 
straitened  to  declare  unto  them  the  unsearchable  riches 
of  Christ.  She  sees  them  as  the  poor  of  the  land  under 
the  lawful  dominion  of  their  masters ;  and  she  says  to 
these  masters,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  God, 
Give  them  what  justice,  benevolence,  humanity  would 
demand,  even  for  a  stranger,  an  enemy,  a  persecutor — 
give  them  the  gospel,  without  which  life  will  be  a  curse. 


198  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Sweeten    their    toil,  sanctify    their    live«,  hallow    their 
deaths. 

The  solemnities  of  this  night  are  a  proof  that  the  call 
has  not  been  wholly  disregarded  among  us.  The  work 
which  we  here  begin  is  a  good  work.  God  grant  that  such 
work  may  never  cease  until  every  slave  in  the  land  is 
brought  under  the  tuition  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth !  None 
need  be  afraid  of  his  lessons.  It  was  said  of  him  on  earth 
that  he  should  not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor  cause  his  voice  to 
bo  heard  in  the  streets.  He  was  no  stirrer  up  of  strife, 
no  mover  of  sedition.  His  "religion,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
the  pillar  of  society,  the  safeguard  of  nations,  the  parent 
of  social  order,  which  alone  has  power  to  curb  the  fury 
of  the  passions,  and  secure  to  every  one  his  rights :  to  the 
laborious,  the  reward  of  their  industry;  to  the  rich,  the 
enjoyment  of  their  wealth;  to  nobles,  the  preservation  of 
their  honors,  and  to  the  princes,  the  stability  of  their 
thrones."  Insurrection^  anarchy  and  bloodshed,  revolt 
against  masters,  or  treason  against  States,  were  never 
learned  in  the  school  of  him  whose  apostles  enjoins  sub- 
jection to  the  magistrate  and  obedience  to  all  lawful  au- 
thority as  characteristic  duties  of  the  faithful.  Is  any- 
thing to  be  apprehended  from  the  instructions  of  him 
in  whose  text-book  it  is  recorded,  ''Let  as  many  servants 
as  are  under  the  yoke,  count  their  masters  worthy  of  all 
honor"  ?  Christian  knowledge  inculcates  contentment 
with  our  lot ;  and,  in  bringing  before  us  the  tremendous 
realities  of  eternity,  renders  us  comparatively  indifferent 
to  the  inconveniences  and  hardships  of  time.  It  subdues 
those  passions  and  prejudices  from  which  all  real  danger 
to  the  social  economy  springs.  "Some  have  objected," 
says  a  splendid  writer,*  "to  the  instruction  of  the  lower 
classes  from  an  apprehension  that  it  would  lift  them 
above  their  sphere,  make  them  dissatisfied  with  their  sta- 
tion in  life,  and,  by  impairing  the  habits  of  subordi- 
nation, endanger  the  tranquillity  of  the  State;  an  objec- 
tion devoid,  surely,  of  all  force  and  validity.  It  is  not 
easy  to  conceive  in  what  manner  instructing  men  in  their 

*  Robert  Hall.     Advantages  of  Knowledge  to  the  Lower  Classes 
'(Works,  Vol.  I.,  p.  202). 


FIVE  YEAES'  WORK  AMONG  THE  NEGROES.  199 

duties  can  prompt  them  to  neglect  those  duties,  or  how 
that  enlargement  of  reason,  which  enables  them  to  compre- 
hend the  true  groimds  of  authority,  and  the  obligation  to 
obedience,  should  indispose  them  to  obey.  The  admirable 
mechanism  of  society,  together  with  that  subordination 
of  ranks  which  is  essential  to  its  subsistence,  is  surely  not 
an  elaborate  imposture  which  the  exercise  of  reason  will 
detect  and  expose.  The  objection  we  have  stated  implies 
a  reflection  on  the  social  order  equally  impolitic,  invid- 
ious and  unjust.  Kothing,  in  reality,  renders  legitimate 
governments  so  insecure  as  extreme  ignorance  in  the  peo- 
ple. It  is  this  which  yields  them  an  easy  prey  to  seduc- 
tion, makes  them  the  victims  of  prejudice  and  false 
alarms,  and  so  ferocious  withal,  that  their  interference  in 
a  time  of  public  commotion  is  more  to  be  dreaded  than  the 
eruption  of  a  volcano. 

It  is  thus  Dr.  Thornwell  set  forth  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  slavery.  Had  my  Charleston  undertaking  been 
productive  of  no  other  good  than  the  inducing  of  Dr. 
Thornwell  to  prepare  this  admirable  exposition,  I  should 
not  feel  that  my  time  and  labor  had  been  spent  in  vain. 
The  text  itself  is  the  sermon.  It  either  contains  or  it 
suggests  all  the  ideas  which  the  preacher  presented  to  his 
congregation.  The  very  name  which  it  gives  to  slave- 
holders, and  then  to  our  Lord  Jesus  himself,  is  most  sig- 
nificant, making  it  manifest  that  the  slaveholder,  in  the 
Apostle's  apprehension,  is  not  the  dreadful  character  de- 
scribed by  abolitionists.  If  the  doctrine  of  this  sermon 
is  not  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  the  apostle  had  not  dared 
to  apply  the  same  name  to  us  and  our  Saviour ;  he  had 
made  a  misnomer  in  calling  us  by  the  name  he  gives 
to  Christ,  or  he  had  blasphemed  our  Lord  by  ap- 
plying to  him  a  title  which  befits  us,  only  because  it 
covered  up  all  the  enormous  wickedness  of  which  we  were 
guilty. 

These  principles,  as  Dr.  Thornwell  sets  them  forth,  are 
scriptural.  They  cannot  die.  Slavery  is  dead  in  the 
South,  and  the  South  has  no  tears  to  shed  over  it.  But 
these  principles  cannot  die.  Could  expositions  of  them, 
like  this  one,  have  reached  the  I^^orth  in  time,  and  been 
disseminated  far  and  wide,  and  fairly  considered  by  all 


200  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

that  people,  the  current  of  subsequent  events  might  possi- 
bly have  been  changed. 

But,  though  these  principles  cannot  die,  they  must 
needs  be  set  forth  continually ;   because  the  true 

"  Freedom's  battle  once  begun, 
Bcqueatli'd  by  faithful  sire  to  son, 
Though  baffled  oft,  is  ever  won." 

And— 

"  Truth  crushed  to  earth  shall  rise  again; 
The  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers." 

Yes,  these  principles  cannot  die,  and  so,  too,  though 
slavery  be  dead,  the  battle  for  them  must  still  go  on ;  be- 
cause the  war  against  Christianity  by  Atheism,  in  all  its 
varied  forms,  is  far  from  being  ended,  and  the  friends  of 
truth  must  be  ceaselessly  active  in  disseminating  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  word  of  God.  Dr.  Thornwell  well  says, 
"What  disasters  it  will  be  necessary  to  pass  through  be- 
fore the  nations  can  be  taught  the  lessons  of  providence, 
what  lights  shall  be  extinguished  and  what  horrors  ex- 
perienced, no  human  sagacity  can  foresee.  But  that  the 
world  is  now  the  theatre  of  an  extraordinary  conflict  of 
great  principles  ;  that  the  foundations  of  society  are  about 
to  be  explored  to  their  depths,  and  the  sources  of  social 
and  political  prosperity  laid  bare ;  that  the  questions  in 
dispute  involve  all  that  is  dear  and  precious  to  man  on 
earth — the  most  superficial  observer  cannot  fail  to  per- 
ceive. Experiment  after  experiment  may  be  made,  disas- 
ter succeed  disaster,  in  carrying  out  the  principles  of  an 
atheistic  philosophy,  until  the  nations,  wearied  and  heart- 
sickened  with  changes  without  improvement,  shall  open 
their  eyes  to  the  real  causes  of  their  calamities,  and  learn 
the  lessons  which  wisdom  shall  evolve  from  the  events  that 
shall  come  to  pass.  Truth  must  triumph.  God  will  vin- 
dicate the  appointments  of  his  providence." 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

Retirement  from  the  iSTEGRO  Work. — Dr.  Girardeau 
Succeeds. — Eyes  Recuperate  from  Five  Years'" 
Farm  Life. — Called  to  Theological  Seminary. 

1852-1857. 

I  GAVE  over  five  years,  that  is,  from  1846  to  the  close 
of  1851,  to  the  enterprise  of  establishing  a  church  in 
Charleston  for  negro  instruction  separately  from  the 
whites,  but  under  a  white  minister  and  white  Sunday- 
school  teachers.  During  these  years  I  was  also  consider- 
ably occupied  in  the  domestic  missionary  work  of  my 
presbytery,  and  also  promoting  the  interest  of  our  Theo- 
logical Seminary  at  Columbia  in  various  ways,  as  in 
carrying  on  a  long  correspondence  with  Dr.  McGill,  of 
Allegheny  Seminary,  in  the  hope  of  inducing  him  to  be- 
come our  professor  of  Church  History  and  Polity.  This, 
however,  proved  a  vain  effort,  though  the  correspondence 
was  very  much  protracted.  He  did  come  and  serve  us, 
however,  for  a  little  while. 

Early  in  1850  there  culminated  another  tremendous 
agitation  in  the  South  in  respect  to  disunion.  There  was 
still  the  same  dissatisfaction  with  the  tariff  law,  by  which 
the  government  was  building  up  the  Xorthern  manufac- 
turers at  the  expense  of  the  Southern  agi'iculturists ;  but 
another  and  very  dangerous  element  was  now  added  to 
this  dissatisfaction.  Abolition  sentiment  at  the  ]*^orth 
was  now  of  seventeen  years'  growth ;  the  underground 
railroad  had  been  established ;  slaves  were  lured  away 
from  their  homes  and  masters,  and  the  ISTorth  would  not 
surrender  such  fugitives,  as  she  was  bound  to  do  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  meanwhile,  the  South 
was  beginning  to  be  flooded  with  incendiary  documents 
designed  to  rouse  up  insurrections  by  the  negroes. 
TAventy  years  ago  the  question  with  the  South  was  of  nul- 
lification. 'Now  it  was  of  secession.  My  father,  now  an 
old  man  of  seventy-three,  was  again  on  the  Union  side, 


202  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

and  very  niiich  roused.  But  the  excitement  by  no  means 
equalled  the  period  of  1830.  I  confess  that  my  sympa- 
thies were  not  with  him  in  this  case.  Still  I  was  not 
prepared  to  go  to  extremes.  I  had  grave  doubts  about  the 
course  that  was  advocated  by  a  great  many,  and  my  father 
was  so  urgent  that  I  should  cast  my  vote  against  disunion 
that  I  yielded  to  his  pressure  and  voted  with  him.  I  ap- 
pend here  an  interesting  extract  from  a  letter  of  Dr. 
Thornwell,  addressed  to  me  on  this  subject,  of  date,  South 
Carolina  College,  March  8,  1850 : 

The  condition  of  the  country  is  a  ceaseless  burden  on  my  spirits. 
The  prospect  of  disunion  I  am  unable  to  contemplate  without  ab- 
solute horror.  Tliat  this  confederacy  can  be  broken  up,  and  the 
numberless  questions  arising  out  of  its  common  interests  adjusted 
without  war,  is  a  mere  dream  of  the  fancy.  We  must  calculate  from 
the  obvious  relations  of  the  parties,  upon  the  most  bloody,  ferocious 
and  unscrupulous  succession  of  hostilities  in  the  annals  of  history. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  attempt  in  the  present  age,  when  all  the 
elements  of  disorder,  socialism,  communism,  rabid  democracy  and 
open  atheism  are  busily  at  work,  the  attempt  under  such  circum- 
stances to  organize  new  governments  and  to  frame  new  constitu- 
tions, will  be  perilous  in  the  extreme.  Political  quackery  will  have 
full  scope,  and  after  trying  the  vile  nostrums  which  the  atheistic 
philosophy  of  Europe  has  long  been  preparing  for  the  evils  of  the 
world,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  fall  back  upon  a  military  despotism, 
or  something  not  much  better.  In  this  reign  of  anarchy  and  con- 
fusion, religion  must  retreat  to  the  caves  and  the  mountains.  Our 
missionary  operations  must  all  be  arrested.  Our  efforts  to  spread 
the  Bible,  to  evangelize  the  country  and  to  convert  the  world,  must 
be  abandoned,  and  darkness  must  be  permitted  to  cover  the  earth 
and  gross  darkness  the  people.  My  soul  is  cast  down  within  me,  and 
I  have  hardly  ceased  for  some  weeks  past  to  pray  God,  day  and 
night,  in  belialf  of  the  country.  My  hope  is  only  in  him.  Vain,  in 
this  crisis,  is  the  help  of  man.  To  my  mind  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union  is  synonymous  with  ruin ;  ruin  to  us,  ruin  to  the  North,  ruin 
to  all  parties.  It  is  another  name  for  war,  cruelty,  political  experi- 
ments, licentiousness,  irreligion,  atheism,  anarchy.  There  is  no 
telling  where  the  process  is  to  stop.  California  will  certainly  set 
up  for  itself,  Texas  may  tile  off,  and  as  slavery  dies  out  in  the  older 
States  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  the  elements  will  be  introduced 
of  fresh  agitations  and  fresh  divisions.  I  cannot  dwell  upon  the 
subject.  May  God  mercifully  turn  the  tide  and  send  peace  and  pros- 
perity, at  least  in  our  days. 


KETIKEMENT  FEOM  THE  NEGEO  WORK.  203 

At  the  close  of  1851,  the  Rev.  Ferdinand  Jacobs  took 
my  phT,ce  in  the  Anson  street  negro  work,  until  the  Rev. 
John  L.  Girardeau  should  be  able  to  enter  upon  it. 

It  must  have  been  early  in  1852  that  I  assisted  Dr. 
Howe  and  some  other  brethren  in  securing  from  the 
churches  of  South  Carolina  the  endowment  of  a  professor- 
ship in  Oglethorpe  (College  at  Milledgeville,  Georgia. 
This  endowment  had  been  promised  to  the  churches  of 
Georgia  as  compensation  to  them  for  their  endowment 
of  a  chair  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  which  belonged 
to  the  synods  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  But  years 
had  passed,  and  the  South  Carolina  promise  was  never 
fulfilled.  Considerable  irritation  between  the  two  bodies 
was  the  consequence,  and  an  earnest  effort  began  to  be 
made  by  a  few  of  our  brethren  in  this  State  to  remove 
this  cause  of  offence.  It  was  my  privilege  to  visit  the 
churches  of  Harmony  Presbytery  and  aid  their  pastors 
in  securing  the  full  share  of  this  endowment  which  was 
allotted  to  each  by  the  synod.  Our  efforts  were  successful, 
and  great  was  the  joy  that  followed,  when  we  were  able 
completely  to  fulfill  our  promises. 

But  the  General  Assembly  was  to  meet  that  year,  on 
the  20th  of  May,  in  the  city  of  Charleston,  and,  of  course, 
1  could  not  set  out  on  my  visit  to  the  up-country  until 
after  that  meeting.  I  was  put  on  the  committee  of  recep- 
tion. There  were  two  delegates  from  ]^ew  England  who 
came  to  the  Assembly.  One  of  these  was  an  intimate 
Princeton  Seminary  friend  of  mine,  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Con- 
verse. The  name  of  the  other  I  am  not  able  to  recall.  He 
was  a  very  nice  and  intelligent  gentleman,  who  was  very 
much  alive  to  everything  that  concerned  our  negroes.  I 
wanted  my  friend  Converse,  of  course,  to  be  at  my  house ; 
and  I  thought  I  could  also  make  the  other  gentleman  com- 
fortable, in  all  respects,  if  I  got  him  to  stay  with  me.  He 
wanted  to  know  everything  that  related  to  our  slaves,  for 
whom  he  expressed  very  particular  sympathy  and  affec- 
tion. Of  course,  he  was  greatly  interested  to  hear  all 
about  my  church  for  the  colored  people.  He  waited  im- 
patiently for  Sunday  to  come,  when  he  promised  himself 
the  pleasure  of  attending  at  their  place  of  worship,  and 
joining  in  religious  services  with  them.    He  was  the  more 


204  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

interested  about  this  service  when  he  learned  that  the 
communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  would  be  administered 
on  that  occasion  to  the  black  people,  and  also  to  their 
white  friends  who  might  be  present.  Sunday  afternoon 
came  when  he  was  to  accompany  us  to  this  service,  but  he 
could  not  be  found.  We  looked  everywhere  for  him  in 
vain.  He  had  taken  himself  off.  It  turned  out  that  the 
idea  of  a  communion  season  for  the  two  races  together, 
when  he  had  once  got  time  to  think  about  it,  scared  him. 
He  was  alarmed  lest  it  might  happen  to  him  to  drink  out 
of  the  same  cup  of  which  the  negroes  had  partaken.  We 
did  not  hear  much  from  him  about  our  slaves  after  this. 

The  General  Assembly,  which  was  now  to  begin  its 
meeting  in  Charleston,  was  of  our  yet  undivided  Presby- 
terian Church,  and  consisted  of  commissioners  from  both 
j^orth  and  South.  The  retiring  ]\Ioderator  was  my  friend 
Humphrey,  the  same  who  stood  at  my  side  in  the  excited 
Evangelical  Alliance  at  London  in  1846,  and  was  the 
first,  after  Dr.  Smyth,  to  second  my  protest  there.  Six 
years  had  made  him  a  very  eminent  minister  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  The  sermon  with  which  he  opened  the 
Assembly  delighted  the  people  of  Charleston  very  greatly, 
by  his  elegant  references  to  the  Huguenot  forefathers  of 
many  of  our  citizens.  Many  people  were  greatly  de- 
lighted with  the  whole  proceedings ;  but  some  of  the  acts 
of  the  Assembly  gave  very  great  dissatisfaction  to  many 
sound  and  earnest  Presbyterians.  I  append  here  the 
larger  part  of  a  letter  which  Dr.  Thornwell  wrote  me, 
dated  2d  June,  almost  immediately  after  the  dissolution 
of  that  Assembly : 

What  I  want  specially  to  write  to  you  about  is  the  course  of  the 
late  Assembly.  It  has  filled  me  with  profound  sorrow.  Most  of  its 
proceedings  were  mere  nothings — a  series  of  inanities — but  the  only 
measures  of  any  consequence  that  it  thouglit  proper  to  adopt  were 
steps  backward.  It  has  lowered  the  tone  of  the  church  upon  every 
subject  on  which  she  has  heretofore  spoken,  and  manifested  a  spirit 
of  compromise  and  concession  to  mere  carnal  influences  of  which  I 
am  heartily  ashamed.  Things  seem  to  me  to  have  been  done  in  utter 
confusion.  Resolutions  adopted  which  nobody  understood ;  all  was 
hurry,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  much  was  folly,  if  nothing 
worse.     I  shall  instance  in  three  things: 

1.  There  was  the  discontinuance  of  the  Popery  sermon.     This  cir- 


THE  GENEEAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1852.         205 

cumstance  is  significant.  It  is  a  concession  which  ought  never  to 
have  been  made.  Some  of  the  arguments  would  have  done  very  well 
if  the  question  were,  shall  we  institute  such  a  sermon?  but  the  ques- 
tion is  very  different  when  it  assumes  the  shape  of  backing  out  from 
a  position  already  assumed.  I  regretted  this  resolution  very  much. 
I  regretted  particularly  that  it  should  have  passed  in  Charleston 
just  at  this  time. 

2.  There  was  the  vote  of  censure  upon  the  records  of  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina.  This  vote  goes  much  further  than  any  previous 
action  of  the  Assembly,  or  any  other  church  court.  It  is  a  virtual 
declaration  that  ruling  elders  are  mere  cyphers,  and  the  sooner  we 
kick  them  out  of  our  courts  the  better.  The  resolution  of  owv 
Synod  did  not  affirm  that  their  presence  was  essential  to  the  con- 
stitution of  a  court,  or  that  its  proceedings  were  invalid  without 
them;  it  affirmed  just  the  opposite  of  these  things,  and  maintained 
only  that  it  was  not  regular ;  it  was  not  the  spirit  of  our  constitu- 
tion (which  contemplates  an  equal  number  of  ministers  and  ruling 
elders)  to  organize  without  them.  This,  it  seems,  however,  is  not  to 
be  endured.  If  they  happen  to  be  there,  they  may  be  allowed  to  sit; 
if  not  there,  nobody  cares;  we  can  get  along  as  well  without  them. 
What  makes  this  abominable  vote  still  worse,  I  have  seen  no  one  yet 
who  knew  what  he  was  voting  about  when  he  gave  his  vote.  The 
stab  was  inflicted  in  the  dark. 

3.  But  the  most  atrocious  of  all  the  proceedings  was  the  resolu- 
tion in  relation  to  the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery.  Every  single 
distinctive  feature  of  the  past  testimony  of  the  church,  in  the  great 
struggle  which  terminated  in  the  rupture  of  1837-1838,  has  here 
been  formally  or  virtually  surrendered.  The  elective  affinity  prin- 
ciple has  been  endorsed  out  and  out;  the  right  of  every  court  to 
examine  its  members  surrendered,  and  the  preeminent  importance  of 
soundness  in  the  faith  in  the  gospel  ministry,  virtually  denied  by 
affirming  that  the  boldest  of  all  declarations,  that  of  adherence  to 
our  doctrinal  standards,  a  declaration  which  every  New-School  man 
during  our  whole  controversy  repeated  ad  nauseam,  shall  be  suffi- 
cient, even  in  cases  where  there  is  the  strongest  reason  to  suspect 
that  these  standards  are  interpreted  after  a  fashion  that  no  Old- 
School  man  can  approve.  I  cannot  express  my  amazement  that  such 
a  measure  could  have  been  swallowed  by  a  General  Assembly  of  the 
Old-School  church. 

Things  were  going  on  finely  among  us.  Public  sympathy  was  in 
our  direction,  or  getting  to  be  so,  in  Charleston.  We  had  adopted  a 
policy,  which  surely,  but  slowly,  would  have  Presbyterianized  all 
the  independent  churches  in  the  low  country;  everything  was  play- 
ing into  our  hands,  and  we  needed  nothing  but  patience  and  perse- 
verance to  succeed.     But  this  measure  has  thrown  us  back,  and  re- 


206  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

indorsed  the  principle  of  a  union  in  one  mongrel  court  of  every 
species  of  creature  that  will  call  itself  Calvinist.  The  effects  will 
be  deplorable.  This  Assembly  ought  to  have  done  what  the  Assem- 
bly of  1845  did.  This  same  memorial,  or  one  like  it,  was  presented 
to  that  body,  and  after  being  heard  or  explained,  was  quietly  laid 
upon  the  table.  That  Assembly  was  composed  of  good  men  and  true. 
I  have  no  idea  that  ten  men  can  be  found  in  the  Synod  who  will 
obey  the  injunction.  We  shall  refuse,  and  appoint  a  committee  to 
argue  our  case  at  the  bar  of  the  next  Assembly.  We  shall  appeal 
from  Philip  drunk  to  Philip  sober.  The  resolution  will  be  repealed 
as  soon  as  the  case  is  understood.  It  is  well,  however,  that  we  do 
not  meet  next  year  at  Buffalo  at  the  same  time  with  the  New  School 
body,  as  we  might  have  gotten  into  another  love  fit,  and  received  the 
whole  batch  of  them,  with  tears  of  penitence  in  our  eyes,  and  hum- 
ble petitions  of  pardon  on  our  lips,  for  all  past  outrages  upon  their 
orthodoxy. 

I  have  written  hastily  just  to  unburden.  I  am  full,  and,  as  the 
fish-woman  said,  "I  shall  burst  if  I  do  not  let  some  of  the  steam 
out."  Our  poor  church  is  in  the  hands  of  God;  this  is  my  comfort, 
and  it  is  the  only  thing  which  reconciles  me  to  labor  for  her  good. 
Human  folly  is  so  provoking,  especially  when,  by  one  egregious  ab- 
surdity, it  upsets  the  work  of  years,  that  none  of  us  could  have  the 
heart  to  toil  on  if  it  were  not  that  God  shall  make  the  wrath  of  man 
to  praise  him. 

Having  been  present  myself  a  deeply  interested  spec- 
tator, and  an  anxious  listener  to  all  that  was  said,  I  feel 
bound  to  say  that  haste  and  confusion  seemed  to  me  to 
characterize  all  the  work  of  this  Assembly  more  than  any 
reputable  quality. 

As  to  the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery,  the  action 
taken  by  the  Assembly  was  exceedingly  offensive  and  un- 
just to  all  those  in  Charleston  who  were  connected  with 
itself.  The  Charleston  Union  Presbytery  was  a  mixed 
body,  having  been  originally  formed,  as  its  name  implies, 
partly  of  Congregationalists  and  partly  of  Presbyterians. 
For  the  Assembly  to  receive  such  a  body  into  union  with 
itself  was  to  endorse  the  old  "plan  of  union"  between 
Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians,  which  proved  so 
fruitful  of  disorder  in  the  jSTorthwest,  and  operated  so 
efficaciously  to  produce  the  division  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  1837  and  1838.  Then,  again,  the  Assembly, 
by  its  action  in  Charleston,  endorsed  that  vicious  princi- 
ple of  "elective  affinity,"  alluded  to  by  Dr.  Thornwell, 


THE  GENEKAL  ASSEMBI.Y  OF  1852.  207 

which  had  been  so  productive  of  heresy,  as  well  as  con- 
tention, sixty  years  ago.  According  to  it,  where,  in  a 
presbytery,  serious,  or,  I  might  say,  fatal  differences  of 
doctrinal  belief  prevailed,  and  rendered  harmony  impos- 
sible between  its  members,  the  body  was  allowed  to  dis- 
solve itself,  and  the  various  individual  members  of  it,  like 
the  mixed-up  particles  of  two  distinct  metals,  each  seeking 
after  its  own  kind,  be  reunited  into  two  presbyteries,  one 
of  Old  School  and  the  other  of  'New  School  views,  but  both 
occupying  the  very  same  territory.  Any  one  can  see  how 
destructive  this  would  necessarily  be,  not  only  of  purity, 
but  also  of  peace.  The  Assembly  of  1852  made  arrange- 
ments for  the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery  and  its  own 
Presbytery  of  Charleston  to  occupy  the  very  same  terri- 
tory, and  both  to  be  acknowledged  as  under  its  authority. 
"All  this  mischief"  (as  Dr.  Thornwell  writes  to  Dr. 
Breckinridge  on  the  28th  of  June)  "was  done  upon  an. 
ex  palate  statement  of  the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery, 
which  statement  was  never  read  in  the  Assembly  at  all, 
but  referred  to  a  committee,  and  that  committee  reported 
by  naked  resolution.  The  facts  of  the  case  were  not  be- 
fore the  house.  The  committee  reports  its  judgment  upon 
the  facts,  and  that  judgment  is  all  that  the  i\.ssembly  had 
regularly  before  it."  Dr.  Thornwell  well  adds :  "There 
were  the  strongest  local  reasons  why  the  Assembly  should 
not  have  touched  this  business.  The  Charleston  Presby- 
tery had  adopted,  and  was  systematically  pursuing,  a  line 
of  policy  which  in  a  few  years  would  have  extinguished 
independency  in  the  low  country.  We  were  gradually  ab- 
sorbing all  its  churches.  iN'ew  Schoolism  Avas  dead.  All 
we  wanted  was  to  be  let  alone ;  but  now  things  are  put 
back  where  they  were  twenty  years  ago." 

Accordingly,  on  the  14th  of  June  I  wrote  thus  to  Dr. 
Thornwell : 

If  the  Assembly  deserve  blame  for  their  blind  and  thoughtless  and 
unconstitutional  action,  much  more  should  the  commissioners  from 
our  own  presbyteries  receive  censure  for  the  representations  which 
they  made,  and  the  representations  they  did  not  make,  in  the  case. 

Especially  was  Mr.   B found  fault  with  for   his   course.     He 

capped  the  climax  by  assuring  the  Assembly,  contrary  to  the  warn- 
ings we  gave  him  the  night  before,  that  the  action  they  were  taking 


2 OS  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

would  please  us  all,  and  by  imploring  them,  almost  with  tears,  to 
act  a  mother's  part,  and,  leaving  nothing  for  the  Synod  to  do,  just 
to  take  both  parties  and  bind  them  at  once  together.*  As  I  stood 
there  listening  to  such  unwarrantable  statements  from  our  own 
representatives,  I  felt  sick  of  the  misplaced  charity  which  reigned  in 
the  Assembly,  and  which  induced  our  own  brethren  to  lead  that  body 
astray.  I  can  be  charitable  myself  when  we  meet  other  Christian 
ministers  on  outside  ground.  I  was  associated  for  twelve  years  as 
a  missionary  to  the  Armenians  with  New  England  Congregation- 
alists,  and  we  lived  and  constantly  worked  together  in  perfect 
charity.  And,  though  I  sometimes  feel  that  the  chief  mistake  of  my 
life  was  to  enter  upon  foreign  missionaiy  work  in  connection  with 
the  American  Board,  yet  my  judgment  approves  to  this  day  the 
course  I  pursued  while  thus  associated.  Yet,  when  the  question  is 
as  to  receiving  into  our  own  church,  which  has  its  metes  and  bounds 
all  marked  down,  a  body  of  men  who  are  not  true  and  real  Presby- 
terians, I  have  no  ,use  for  any  luawkish  sentimentalism.  The  char- 
ity which  does  not  guard  the  doors  in  such  case,  I  call  treachery. 

It  should,  however,  be  stated,  that  this  whole  unright- 
eous affair  was  consummated  when  the  Synod,  at  its  first 
subsequent  meeting,  amalgamated  these  two  bodies  into 
one  presbytery. 

About  the  middle  of  June  I  set  out  to  search  for  a  home 
in  the  mountains,  with  my  wife  and  four  children.  I  also 
took  with  me  my  servant,  Sarah.  For  the  children  and 
this  servant,  I  had  a  carriage  drawn  by  two  horses.  I 
had  also  a  good  driver.  Part  of  my  baggage  was  attached 
to  this  carriage;  the  remainder  filled  up  the  hinder  part 
of  the  one-horse  buggy,  which  I  drove,  with  my  wife  be- 
side me.  Carriages,  horses  and  all  were  conveyed  by 
railroad  as  far  as  Greenwood,  where  we  spent  the  night  at 
Dr.  Calhoun's  hotel ;  the  next  day  we  set  out  in  our  vehi- 
cles for  Abbeville,  thence  to  Greenville  and  to  Asheville, 

*  The  Assembly,  however,  stopped  short  of  ]\Ir.  B 's  earnest 

petition:  but  it  took  order  to  have  the  same  accomplished.  Here 
is  the  resolution  it  adopted:  "7?eso;ued,That  if  the  CharlestonUniou 
Presbytery  shall  make  known  to  the  stated  clerk  of  the  General 
Assembly  their  adhersion  to  this  General  Assembly  and  its  doctrinal 
standards  prior  to  the  next  annual  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  South 
Carolina,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  stated  clerk  to  communicate  the 
same,  without  delay,  to  said  Synod ;  and  the  Synod  shall  thereupon 
enroll  them  as  a  regular  presbytery  in  connection  with  this  body." 


SEAECHING  FOE  A  HOME.  209 

'N.  C.  We  also  penetrated  into  Tennessee  one  day's  ride 
looking  for  a  home.  How  different  forty-five  years  ago 
were  the  towns  I  have  named,  Greenwood,  Abbeville, 
Greenville,  Asheville,  from  what  each  of  them  has  grown 
to  be  at  the  period  of  this  writing.  They  were  indeed 
then  nothing  but  small  towns ;  each  of  them  now  a  flour- 
ishing city.  I  had  found  thus  far  no  rest  for  the  soles  of 
our  feet.  Returning  to  Greenville,  I  met  the  Rev.  S.  S. 
Gaillard,  who  was  then  stationed  at  Greenville.  He  was 
about  to  set  out  to  meet  the  South  Carolina  Presbytery, 
near  Pendleton,  at  what  was  then  known  as  Mt.  Zion 
church.  That  congregation  has  since  put  up  a  fine  brick 
building  at  a  better  spot,  and  the  old  church  still  stands, 
but  is  used  as  a  gin-house  for  packing  cotton.  Being  on 
my  way  to  Clarksville,  Ga.,  through  Pendleton,  I  agreed 
that  we  should  accompany  Brother  Gaillard  to  the  South 
Carolina  Presbytery's  meeting.  He  took  us,  for  the  first 
night,  to  the  hospitable  dwelling  of  Major  McCann,  a 
Presbyterian  elder  living  half  way  between  Greenville  and 
Pendleton.  His  house  was  well  known  then  as  open  to 
all  Presbyterian  ministers  on  their  journeys,  and  our 
large  company  was  most  kindly  entertained.  The  next 
day  Major  McCann  and  1  drove  Gaillard's  buggy,  and  he 
occupied  a  seat  alongside  of  my  wife  and  drove  my  fiery 
Kentucky  mare.  i\.s  the  Major  and  I  drove  along,  we 
passed  by  a  church  building  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the 
road.  He  said,  "That  is  called  the"  I^o-Hell  Church." 
A  Universalist  preacher  had  come  along  some  years  pre- 
vious and  got  this  building  put  up  for  him  to  occupy  in 
preaching.  His  doctrine  was  new  to  that  community. 
As  they  came  to  understand  what  he  preached,  the  build- 
ing got  the  significant  name  which  the  Major  had  re- 
peated. This  sobriquet  killed  off  the  stranger's  enter- 
prise. His  congregation  very  shortly  deserted  him  en- 
tirely. The  logical  conclusion  to  which  they  had  arrived 
was,  that  if  there  was  no  hell,  there  was  no  need  of  any 
church  or  any  preacher,  and  the  building  remained  shut 
up. 

We  reached  the  presbytery's  place  of  meeting  towards 
the  close  of  the  afternoon,  and  there  I  met,  amongst  other 
ministers,  my  friend  Buist,  and  renewed  my  acquaint- 


210  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

ance,  formed  long  before,  with  McaSTeill  Turner  and 
David  Humphreys,  whom  they  now  called  Father 
Humphreys.  With  McjSTeill  Turner,  lately  deceased 
after  many  years'  service,  I  had  been  intimately  ac- 
quainted from  our  very  boyhood.  David  Humphreys  I 
had  kno^vn  as  a  young  Presbyterian  preacher  when  I  had 
travelled  in  the  winter  of  1833  through  all  these  up  coun- 
try churches,  preaching  to  them  about  foreign  missions. 
I  became  acquainted  now,  alsOj  with  several  of  the  ruling 
elders.  One  of  them,  old  Mr.  Josiah  Gaillard,  the  father 
of  the  minister,  invited  me  and  my  family  to  his  house. 
There  we  met  with  a  very  cordial  reception,  but  my 
youngest  daughter  got  sick,  and  I  had  to  move  up  next 
day  to  the  village  of  Pendleton,  where  I  found  quarters 
at  the  old  Cherry  Hotel,  afterwards  burnt  down.  We 
were  detained  here  several  days.  Mr.  Elam  Sharpe,  a 
Presbyterian  ruling  elder,  undertook  to  show  me  around. 
The  first  place  he  took  me  to  was  Woodburn,  which  had' 
been  the  residence,  for  many  years,  of  Mr,  Charles  Cotes- 
worth  Pinckney,  but  he  had  recently  sold  out  to  Mr. 
David  Taylor.  I  fell  in  love  with  Woodburn  at  first 
sight — the  beautiful  ride  through  its  woods  up  to  the 
house,  the  fine  old  dwelling  itself,  the  splendid  mountain 
view  seen  from  its  windows,  the  beautiful  road  down  to- 
the  stable,  running  over  a  ridge,  with  trees  filling  a  hollow 
on  the  left  hand,  and  on  the  right  hand  a  romantic  forest 
ravine.  And,  then,  beyond  the  stable  the  fertile  acres  of 
bottom  land.  All  these  together  made  a  deep  impression 
on  my  fancy.  It  became  clear  to  my  secret  thoughts  that 
this,  with  its  four  hundred  and  fifty  acres,  was  the  home 
I  was  looking  for.  Prom  Pendleton  we  went  over  to 
Clarksville,  Ga.,  visiting  Toccoa  and  Tallulah  Falls  by 
the  way.  I  had  made  a  promise  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ketchum 
that  I  would  settle  nowhere  without  first  seeing  Clarks- 
ville and  its  surroundings.  It  is  a  beautiful  country,  and,, 
moreover,  had  some  personal  attractions  for  us ;  amongst 
them,  my  good  old  friend  and  my  father's  friend,  the  ex- 
cellent Robert  Camjjbell,  Esq.,  a  true  Irish  gentleman, 
and  a  consistent  Christian.  But  Woodburn  had  hold  of 
my  heart.  The  Pinckneys  had  named  it  from  a  couplet 
in  one  of  Walter  Scott's  poems,  as  follows: 


FIVE  YEAKS  OF  FARM  LIFE.  211 

"  Where  Eeed  upon  hex-  margin  sees 
Sweet  \^'oodburn's  cottages  and  trees." 

It  seemed,  indeed,  to  me  a  very  sweet  place.  It  has 
long  been  a  sweet  place,  though  it  has  grown  to  be  very 
much  larger  than  when  I  bought  it.  It  has  been  forty- 
five  years  in  our  family,  and  belonging  now,  with  all  his 
additions  and  improvements,  to  my  nephew,  Augustine  T. 
Smythe,  it  is  still  a  sweet  place.  I  had  not  long  returned 
to  Pendleton  before  it  became  mine  by  purchase,  and  I 
began  to  repair  and  enlarge  the  old  mansion,  and  to  erect 
some  necessary  buildings.  I  had  come  to  this  mountain 
region  on  account  of  my  damaged  eyesight,  and  I  was  to 
devote  myself  to  outdoor  employment  in  this  delicious 
climate.  I  had  many  things  to  see  after,  and  was  con- 
tinually on  horseback,  and  my  eyes  were  very  much  ben- 
efited. 

I  must  have  attended  the  South  Carolina  Presbytery's 
spring  meeting  in  1853,  though  I  cannot  recall  where  it 
met.  Being  transferred  from  the  Charleston  Presbytery, 
I  was  then  and  there  received  as  a  member  of  the  other 
body.  So,  too,  I  cannot  recall  where  its  fall  meeting  was 
held,  but  I  remember  well  how  kind  my  brethren  were 
to  me  in  appointing  me  their  commissioner  to  the  next 
General  Assembly  at  Buffalo,  K  Y.,  in  May,  1854. 

In  the  fall  of  1853,  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  Synod 
of  South  Carolina,  in  the  city  of  Anderson.  The  Rev.  B. 
M.  Palmer,  Jr.,  was  then  the  very  much  beloved  and  ad- 
mired minister  of  our  church  at  Columbia,  and  the  chair 
of  Church  History  and  Polity  being  vacant,  a  very  strong 
desire  was  felt,  by  sundry  infiuential  men,  to  transfer 
him  from  the  pulpit  to  that  chair.  There  was  very  long 
and  earnest  opposition  to  this  measure,  and  the  debate 
occupied  two  whole  days.  We  defeated  the  proposition 
by  a  very  large  majority.  The  friends  of  the  measure 
were  greatly  surprised  and  very  much  disappointed,  and 
those  Avho  opposed  it  regretted  very  much  that  they  had 
been  forced  to  take  that  action.  Their  decided  opposition 
to  removing  Dr.  Palmer  from  the  pulpit  was  well  known 
to  those  who  inaugurated  and  urged  this  movement,  but 
these  men  overrated  their  o^^ti  strength,  and  were  con- 
fident of  easily  carrying  their  measure  through  the  Synod. 


212  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

A  good  deal  of  excitement  was  aroused  during  this  dis- 
cussion. Not  one  member  of  the  opposition  questioned 
the  eminent  fitness  of  Dr.  Palmer  for  the  vacant  chair, 
but  considered  him  as  very  specially  called  to  the  public 
preaching  of  the  glorious  gospel.  Thus,  it  was  settled  by 
the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  in  1853,  that  such  a  pastor- 
ship as  Palmer  then  occupied^  must  take  precedence  over 
a  professorship  in  a  Theological  Seminary. 

The  Buffalo  Assembly  of  1854  was  the  first  I  ever  at- 
tended as  a  commissioner.  This  was  eight  years  after  my 
return  from  the  East.  Sitting  in  the  hall  of  the  American 
Hotel  at  Buffalo,  and  waiting  for  the  hour  to  go  over  to 
the  Assembly's  first  meeting,  I  saw  a  gentleman  walking 
up  and  down  in  front  of  my  seat,  and  I  happened  to  catch 
a  glance  of  his  eyes.  I  rose  immediately,  stood  before 
him  and  j3ut  my  two  hands  on  his  shoulders,  and,  looking 
him  fully  in  the  face,  I  said  to  him,  "Who  am  I  ?"  He 
said,  "I  really  do  not  know."  I  said,  "Look  backwards, 
and  a  good  many  years."  He  was  still  perfectly  non- 
plussed. I  said  to  him,  "Why,  David  H.  Little,  you 
don't  remember  your  room-mate  at  Union  College,  and 
those  deep  religious  experiences  we  passed  through  to- 
gether ?"  His  name  was  Little ;  but  when  we  roomed  to- 
gether, my  person  was  very  little,  and  I  had  changed  a 
great  deal  more  than  he  had.  We  had  many  a  long  talk 
after  this,  and  when  the  Assembly  closed,  I  visited  him  at 
his  residence  in  Cherry  Valley,  in  'New  York. 

To  my  great  surprise  and  bewilderment  the  Kentucky 
brethren,  headed  by  Stuart  Robinson,  insisted  on  nomi- 
nating me  to  be  Moderator  of  the  Assembly.  This  Avas 
purely  because  I  was  known  to  hold  the  same  views  as 
Thornwell  and  Palmer.  But  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge, 
who  was  present,  said  he  would  vote  for  me  on  the  ground 
that,  when  I  returned  from  foreign  service,  I  had  "be- 
come a  negro-preacher."  He  went  on  to  express  what  I 
think  is  a  true  principle,  that  the  honors  of  the  church 
should  be  paid  to  the  men  who  had  labored  and  suffered 
for  her,  only  he  shoiJd  have  added  this  condition,  pro- 
vided they  are  qualified  for  the  office  that  was  to  honor 
them.  For  the  office  of  Moderator  I  certainly  was  not 
qualified,  for  some  eighteen  years  I  had  been  engaged 


FIVE  YEARS  OF  FARM  LIFE.  213 

in  work  that  did  not  fit  me  to  preside  over  the  Assembly. 
I  had  had  but  little  experience  as  to  the  proceedings  of 
our  church  courts. 

Of  course  I  was  not  elected.  The  chair  was  occupied 
bj  Dr.  Henrv  A.  Boardman,  a  Seminary  class-mate  of 
mine,  a  gentleman  and  a  scholar,  who  was  every  way 
fitted  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  on  him.  And  I,  ac- 
cording to  the  Assembly's  custom,  was  made  the  chairman 
of  one  of  the  most  important  standing  committees, 
namely,  the  Committee  of  Domestic  Missions.  Every 
man  who  happened  to  be  nominated  as  Moderator  always 
received  this  kind  of  honor. 

At  the  Assembly  of  ISSi  I  made  the  acquaintance,  per- 
sonally, of  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  which  was  very 
valuable  to  me,  and  became  somewhat  intimate  as  years 
rolled  on.  Here  also  I  learned  to  know  that  other  great 
man,  Stuart  Kobinson.  I  renewed  my  college  acquaint- 
ance with  the  somewhat  celebrated  Dr.  McMaster,  of  New 
Albany  Seminary,  Ohio.  In  general,  I  learned  a  good 
deal  about  the  condition  and  affairs  of  the  whole  Presby- 
terian Church. 

At  the  close  of  the  Assembly  my  wife  and  I  crossed  over 
into  Canada  and  visited  a  little  town  on  Lake  Ontario, 
where  dwelt  the  parents  of  an  English  lady,  with  whom 
we  were  negotiating  to  obtain  her  services  as  governess 
for  our  three  daughters.  We  had  met  her  in  Clarksville, 
Georgia,  and,  by  appointment,  we  met  her  again  here  at 
her  father's  house.  Our  agreement  with  her  was  per- 
fected, and  subsequently,  in  October,  she  entered  our 
family,  and  she  remained  with  us  until  after  the  war, 
and,  after  finishing  the  education  of  my  daughters,  she 
went  to  live  Avith  one  of  them,  in  whose  family  she  still 
abides,  and  where  she  expects  to  close  her  days. 

October  13,  1854,  Dr.  Palmer  wrote  me  as  follows:  "I 
have  just  returned  from  the  Seceder  Synod,  where 
Brother  Banks  and  myself  were  very  kindly  received ; 
and,  perhaps,  as  much  was  accomplished  as  could  be  rea- 
sonably anticipated  at  the  outset.  A  similar  deputation 
was  appointed  to  attend  our  Synod,  and  a  committee 
raised  to  confer  with  any  similar  committee  on  our  side. 
I  was  gratified  to  find  nearly  all  the  leading  members 


214:  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

anxious  for  the  proposed  union,  but  the  body,  as  a  whole, 
and  especially  the  members  of  the  church  at  large,  are 
scarcely  prepared  yet  for  such  a  result.  I  hope  we  shall 
be  patient  and  forbearing,  as  far  as  becomes  a  proper 
Christian  self-respect ;  and,  if  no  more,  intercommunion 
between  the  branches  will  be  effected." 

I  cannot  recall  how,  precisely,  began  these  efforts  to 
effect  union  with  that  body  and  our  Synod,  but  I  know 
that,  on  the  part  of  many  in  our  body,  the  desire  for  this 
end  was  very  sincere  and  earnest.  We  considered  them 
to  be  strict  Presbyterians,  and  aware  of  the  growing 
laxity  of  Presbyterian  principle  amongst  ourselves,  we 
anticipated,  if  I.  ma,y  use  a  homely  phrase,  some  stiffen- 
ing of  our  Synod's  backbone  from  the  union  with  these 
Seceder  Brethren.  They  stand  apart  from  us  and  deny 
us  access  to  the  Lord's  table  in  their  church,  only,  so  far 
-as  I  know,  on  the  question  of  Psalmody.  Their  position 
is  that  God  has  given  to  his  church  inspired  Psalms  to 
sing  in  his  public  worship,  and  that  it  is,  therefore,  un- 
lawful to  sing  in  that  worship  any  hymns  composed  by 
uninspired  men.  Our  position  is,  that  the  Christian 
church  has  been  furnished  with  Christian  doctrine  as  a 
higher  development  of  divine  truth  than  the  Jews  pos- 
sessed, and  may,  therefore,  well  expect  to  have  given  her 
also  a  Christian,  though  uninspired  Psalmody.  There 
are  some  parts  of  Old  Testament  Scripture,  for  example, 
some  chapters  in  Leviticus  and  ]^umbers,  which  we  do  not 
find  profitable  for  reading  in  Christian  congregations. 
And  so  there  are  some  of  the  Psalms  wdiicli  were  suited  to 
the  church  in  Old  Testament  times,  but  which  are  not 
adapted  to  the  I^ew  Testament  church.  Let  no  man  say 
we  are  casting  reproach  on  God's  inspired  word  or  ordi- 
nances. No  one  will  venture  to  insist  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment priesthood  or  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  are  dis- 
honored by  us,  because  we  hold  that  they  are  not  suited 
to  the  Christian  church. 

I  think  our  negotiations  with  the  Associate  Reformed 
brethren  had  no  practical  result. 

In  September  of  this  year  I  was  both  surj^rised  and 
gratified  by  a  unanimous  election  to  the  presidency  of 
Davidson  College.     I  received  letters  from  Drs.  Howe 


FIVE  YEARS  OF  FARM  LIFE.  215 

and  Palmer  urging  me  to  postpone  my  decision  of  the 
ciuestion,  thus  brought  before  me,  until  after  our  Synod's 
meeting,  when  certain  plans  respecting  the  Seminary 
were  expected  to  be  settled,  with  which  plans  my  own 
name  had  been  involved,  to  a  considerable  degree.  I  was 
too  well  aware,  however,  of  my  incompetency  for  the 
presidency  of  the  college  to  admit  of  my  delaying  a  reply 
to  the  proposition  from  Davidson. 

The  summer  of  1854  was  very  much  occupied,  as  just 
now  intimated,  by  our  brethren  at  Columbia  and  a  few 
leading  members  of  the  board  in  plans  for  the  recupera- 
tion of  the  Seminary.  Dr.  Thornwell  had,  many  times 
during  his  connection  with  the  South  Carolina  College, 
had  misgivings  whether  that  was  really,  in  all  respects, 
the  right  place  for  his  life  work.  Tor  many  years  he  had 
filled  the  professorship  of  Sacred  Literature  and  the  Evi- 
dences of  Christianity,  being,  at  the  same  time,  chaplain 
to  the  college.  When,  in  1851,  he  became  the  president 
he  still  continued  to  be  chaplain,  as  well  as  to  fill  the 
chair  of  Sacred  Literature  and  the  Evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity, As  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  there  were  many, 
in  the  successive  classes  of  the  college,  who  became  his 
spiritual  children  during  their  college  life.  In  the 
minds  of  a  great  many  more  he  had  planted  the  seeds  of 
gospel  truth,  whose  fruits  appeared  long  years  after- 
wards. Yet,  notwithstanding  the  fruitfulness  of  his  min- 
istry in  that  institution,  it  was  kno^^m  to  his  intimate 
friends  that  he  would  like  to  be  more  directly  engaged 
in  the  service  of  the  church.  Still  further,  the  presiden- 
tial office  involved  too  much  of  the  government  of  the 
institution  for  his  strength.  He  had  too  much  mere  police 
work  to  do.  It  was  evident  that  he  could  not  long  con- 
tinue in  that  office.  Yet  he  had  instituted  some  most 
valuable  reforms  in  the  management  of  the  college,  and 
its  friends,  for  many  reasons,  were  extremely  anxious  to 
retain  him  in  that  office,  as  well  as  in  the  duties  of  profes- 
sor and  chaplain. 

The  truth  was,  there  was  much  to  be  said  on  both  sides 
of  the  question  of  his  transfer  from  the  college  to  the  pro- 
fessorship of  Theology  in  the  Seminary,  which  now  began 
to  be  seriously  considered  by  some  friends  of  this  latter 


216  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

institution.  Confessedly,  his  position  in  the  college  was 
one  of  vast  importance  to  our  whole  State.  Unspeakable 
injury  to  her  youth,  and  to  many  of  her  most  influential 
citizens,  and  to  the  interests  of  religion  in  general,  had 
been  the  result  of  Dr.  Cooper's  influence  as  president  of 
the  college.  The  Christian  people  of  the  State,  with  one 
accord,  at  length  had  cried  out  against  his  longer  con- 
tinuance in  office.  The  influence  of  Presidents  Barnwell, 
Thornwell  and  Dr.  Elliott,  had  in  turn  succeeded,  and  had 
seemed,  to  all  religious  people,  like  daylight  after  dark-_ 
ness.  The  friends  of  the  Seminary  knew  well  what  a 
sacrifice  they  were  demanding  of  the  college,  but  the 
Presbyterian  Church  had  lent  him  to  the  State  for  a  long 
time,  and  they  now  stood  in  great  need  of  his  services  in 
the  education  of  their  rising  ministry.  At  the  same  time, 
they  greatly  desired  that  Dr.  Thornwell  should  devote 
himself  largely  to  authorship.  As  Dr.  Palmer  has  well 
said,  in  his  Biogra'phy  of  Dr.  Thornwell,  "The  controlling 
motive  with  those  who  advocated  his  translation  to  the 
Theological  Seminary  was  that,  in  the  prosecution  of  its 
sacred  studies,  he  might  pour  out  upon  the  church  and 
upon  the  world  the  treasures  of  knowledge  stored  up 
through  years  of  patient  acquisition.  Alas !  that  the 
wish,  so  ardently  cherished,  should  have  been  only  half 
realized !  The  reader  will  not  close  the  perusal  of  his 
theological  lectures,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  Collected 
Writings,  without  a  sigh  that  the  church  did  not  have  the 
wisdom  to  effect  the  change  in  his  position  at  least  five 
years  earlier.  As  Dr.  Breckinridge  says  in  a  letter,  /The 
blade  was  too  sharp  for  the  scabljard.'  Too  much  study 
and  too  much  care  had  already  done  their  fearful  execu- 
tion upon  a  feeble  frame ;  and  death  came  in  with  his  sad 
arrest  before  the  great  work  which  the  church  desired 
Avas  half  executed."  At  length  (BiograpJiy,  pp.  382- 
383)  the  scheme,  which  had  slowly  matured  in  a  few 
minds  and  was  discussed  at  first  only  in  private  circles, 
took  shape  in  definite  resolutions  prepared  by  the  Board 
of  Directors.  The  venerable  Dr.  Leland  had  cheerfully 
and  cordially  acceded  to  what  was  proposed.  He  was 
willing,  in  his  old  age,  to  vacate  the  chair  of  Didactic  and 
Polemic  Theology,  that  such  an  eminent  instructor  as  Dr. 


FIVE  YEARS  OF  FARM   LIFE.  217 

Thornwell  should  be  secured  to  succeed  him.  The  board's 
''definite  resolutions,"  above  referred  to,  were  ready  the 
last  of  June,  or  first  of  July,  1854.  They  contemplated 
th6  appointment  of  Dr.  Thornwell  to  the  chair  of  The- 
ology, and  of  Dr.  Palmer  to  the  chair  of  Church  History 
and  Polity,  which  he  had  been  provisionally  and  gratui- 
tously occupying  for  some  time,  in  connection  with  his 
pastorship  of  the  Columbia  church.  At  the  regular  meet- 
ing of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  on  the  15th  of  ]^o- 
vember,  1851,  at  Charleston,  these  resolutions  came  up, 
and  were  thoroughly  discussed.  Dr.  Palmer's  position 
was  fully  explained  and  set  before  the  Synod.  He  knew 
how  desirable  it  was,  on  many  grounds,  to  effect  the  trans- 
fer to  the  Seminary  of  our  great  theologian.  He  was  will- 
ing to  be  or  to  do  anything  which  the  board  proposed,  if 
the  Synod  also  concurred,  in  order  to  effect  this  great 
object.  Dr.  Thornwell  was  not  present  at  this  meeting  of 
the  SjTiod.  His  mind  had  been  all  along  in  great  perplex- 
ity, having  doubts  in  regard  to  several  points  relating  to 
the  transfer.  He  wanted,  as  stated  before,  to  be  in  the 
more  direct  service  of  the  church ;  but  he  was  serving  her 
already  in  one  institution  of  sacred  learning,  and  the 
change  from  that  to  another  similar  institution  did  not 
altogether  satisfy  his  longings.  Moreover,  he  had  been 
in  doubt  whether  the  number  of  candidates  for  the  min- 
istry in  the  South  was  sufiicient  to  warrant  the  proposed 
transfer.  He  was  doubtful  whether  the  cheapness  of 
living  at  Danville,  as  compared  with  Columbia,  would 
not  decide  many  to  go  to  the  former  place  who  might 
otherwise  be  expected  to  come  to  Columbia.  He  had  been 
even  doubtful  whether,  all  things  considered,  he  might 
not  be  more  useful  to  the  church  in  the  college  than  at  the 
Seminary,  and  he  therefore  had  contemplated  the  change 
not  without  fear,  as  well  as  pain.  His  heart  had  been 
long  and  greatly  devoted  to  the  college.  He  felt  that 
nothing  but  the  sternest  necessity  could  justify  the  sac- 
rifice he  was  called  to  make,  but  he  had  become  satisfied 
that  that  necessity  did  exist.  Things  had  reached  a  crisis 
in  the  Seminary.  It  was  much  to  be  dreaded  that,  with- 
out some  very  decisive  movement,  the  next  session  of  the 
Seminary  would  open  with  a  mere  handful  of  students ; 


218  MY   LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

and  the  Synod  was  certainly  lookino-  to  him  to  raise  up 
the  dying  institution,  lie  knew  how  much  was  expected 
of  him,  and  he  was  not  willing  to  undertake  the  task, 
unless  he  had  his  friend  and  brother  Palmer  at  his  side 
to  aid  him  in  the  effort.  Such  was  the  condition  of  the 
case  which  was  now  to  be  debated. 

The  discussion  w^hich  ensued  was  long  and  earnest. 
Great  influence  had  been  employed  to  persuade  members 
of  the  Synod,  particularly  the  elders  present,  to  vote 
against  \^'hat  was  proposed.  Many  leading  men  in  the 
State  were  bitterly  opposed  to  the  measure.  Some  of 
these  had  sons  whom  they  were  desirous  to  have  educated 
at  the  South  Carolina  College  under  Dr.  Thornwell. 
Many  prominent  Presbyterians,  influenced  by  these  and 
other  honorable  motives,  stood  out  against  the  transfer. 
As  has  been  intimated  already,  much  could  be  said  on 
behalf  of  the  college,  and  much  was  said.  But  the  Sem- 
inary also  had  very  strong  friends  on  the  floor,  and,  for  a 
good  while,  the  issue  seemed  to  be  doubtful.  Amongst 
other  things,  it  was  maintained  by  the  former  class  that 
Dr.  Thornwell  could  not  be  induced  to  leave  the  college, 
and  not  a  few  members  of  the  Synod  seemed  to  accept  this 
statement.  It  had  leaked  out  that  I  had  in  my  pocket  Dr. 
Thornwell's  written  statement  of  what  really  were  his 
ideas,  and  I  was  urged  by  many  to  produce  it,  but  I  had 
reasons  for  not  complying  immediately.  At  length,  when 
the  subject  had  been  thoroughly  discussed  on  its  own 
merits,  I  produced  the  letter,  and  had  it  read  by  the  clerk 
of  Synod.  It  was  listened  to  with  breathless  interest. 
Here  is  the  letter: 

South  Carolina  College,  Xovember  15,  1854. 
INlY  Dear  Brother  :  1  was  very  much  mortified  that  Brother 
Bishop  left  this  morning  without  my  seeing  him,  as  I  had  resolved 
to  send  you  a  note  by  him.  It  may  not  be  too  late  yet.  What  I 
have  to  say  it  this:  I  cannot  consider  the  call  to  the  Seminary  with- 
out provisions  made  for  an  adequate  support.  I  do  not  expect  the 
salary  wliieh  I  now  get,  but  I  will  not  undertake  to  live  on  two 
thousand  dollars.  If  an  adequate  support  is  secured,  and  it  is  the 
impression  of  the  Synod,  expressed  by  a  large  majority,  that  I 
ought  to  take  the  theological  cliair,  and  no  providential  hinderances 
should  interpose,  or  plain  intimations  that  I  ought  to  stay  where  I 
am.  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  go.     ^Vith  much  love. 

Your  friend  and  brother,  J.  II.  Thornw^ell. 


FIVE  YEARS  OF  FARM  LIFE.  219 

This  commiinication  made  it  manifest  to  all  what  was 
Dr.  Thornwell's  own.  judgment  in  the  case.  The  vote 
which  followed  convinced  him  what  was  the  impression  of 
the  Synod.  On  the  29th  of  ISTovember  he  tendered  his 
resignation  of  the  presidency  of  the  college,  but  was  met 
hy  the  trustees,  as  once  before,  when  called  to  a  church 
in  Baltimore,  with  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  which 
required  a  year's  notice  before  the  resignation  could  take 
effect.  He  was  not,  therefore,  actually  released  until  the 
4th  of  December,  1855,  when  his  successor  was  elected, 
and  he  immediately  began  his  work  in  the  Seminary.  Im- 
mediately, also,  Dr.  Palmer  and  I  began  our  effort  to  raise 
forty  thousand  dollars  for  the  Thornwell  professorship. 

We  began  our  work  with  Georgia,  and  from  the  three 
cities  of  Augusta,  Savannah  and  Athens,  which  were  all 
that  we  visited,  we  obtained  $4,672.50.  We  proceeded  to 
Alabama,  and,  from  various  churches  in  that  State,  got 
$5,264.  We  went  on  to  Xew  Orleans,  and  there  spent 
several  weeks,  obtaining  $2,865.  Finding  it  necessary  to 
return  homeward,  Charleston  gave  us  $17,783.  From 
'South  Carolina  Presbytery  we  got  $5,448.  From  Edisto 
and  John's  Island  we  got  $4,000.  These  amounts  foot 
up  $40,032.50. 

These  figures  I  take  from  my  original  memoranda, 
made  forty-three  years  ago,  but  I  will  not  vouch  for  their 
absolute  correctness.  What  we  obtained  was,  some  of  it, 
in  cash,  but  chiefly  in  notes^  hearing  interest,  and  payable 
in  one,  two  and  three  years  to  Andrew  Crawford,  treas- 
urer of  the  board.  I  have  no  doubt  they  were  all,  or 
nearly  all,  paid  in  due  time.  We  ceased  our  work  when 
we  had  got  to  the  forty  thousand  dollar  mark.  We  might 
have  gone  on  and  obtained  further  generous  subscriptions 
from  churches  in  Georgia,  as  well  as  from  Bethel  and 
Harmony  Presbyteries,  and  I  cannot,  at  this  long  dis- 
tance of  time,  explain  exactly  why  we  did  not  pursue  that 
course. 

The  Presbyterians  of  ]^ew  Orleans  all  fell  in  love  with 
Dr.  Palmer,  and  I  soon  began  to  anticipate  what  shortly 
came  to  pass.  At  the  spring  meeting  of  Charleston  Pres- 
bytery, in  1855,  there  was  presented  a  very  earnest  call 
for  him  to  become  their  pastor.     This  was  breaking  up 


220  MY  LIFE  xYND  TIMES. 

the  plan  which  the  Synods  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia 
had  laboriously  constructed  for  the  Seminary.  Accord- 
ingly, presbytery,  after  earnest  debate,  refused  to  put  the 
call  into  Dr.  Palmer's  hand.  A  second  call,  from  the  same 
church,  came  before  us  at  our  fall  meeting,  and  presby- 
tery thought  it  proper,  in  the  circumstances,  to  refer  the 
question  to  the  S^mod,  which  met  at  Columbia.  A  num- 
ber of  those  who,  at  Anderson  in  1853,  had  opposed 
Palmer's  removal  from  the  pulpit  to  the  Seminary,  still 
maintained  their  ground,  and  all  these  were  ready  to  sus- 
tain the  ISTew  Orleans  call.  On  the  other  hand,  some  of 
these  very  men,  viewing,  as  most  important  to  the  inter- 
ests of  our  church,  Thornwell's,  and,  with  him.  Palmer's, 
transfer  to  the  Seminary,  were  now  anxious  to  defeat  the 
call  from  Xew  Orleans.  Many  were  the  able  speeches 
made,  both  for  and  against  that  call,  and,  for  a  long  time, 
the  issue  was  doubtful.  Dr.  Palmer  very  candidly  and 
fully  explained  his  position.  He  was  desirous  to  accept 
the  call,  and  ^Ji'each  the  gospel  in  that  great  city  of  the 
Southwest,  but  he  was  still  willing,  as  a  year  before,  to 
be  guided  by  the  Synod,  yielding  his  convictions  to  their 
judgment.  He  was  Avell  understood  on  all  hands.  The 
chief  argument  for  the  call,  as  many  stated  it,  was  "the 
manifest  leadings  of  Providence"  in  its  favor.  It  seemed 
to  me  that  what  they  called  the  leadings  of  Providence 
were  nothing  but  very  natural  and  very  reasonable  wishes 
of  certain  good  people  in  New  Orleans.  They  knew  a 
good  preacher  when  they  heard  him,  and  this  opportunity 
had  been  several  times  enjoyed  by  them.  They  desired 
to  have  him  with  very  great  desire,  and  were  determined 
to  make  every  effort  to  get  him.  Other  large  and  impor- 
tant churches,  perhaps  to  the  number  of  fifteen  or  twenty, 
had  had  the  same  desire,  only  they  had  not  pursued  the 
fulfillment  of  it  with  such  avidity.  Was  it  possible,  I 
asked,  that,  in  all  these  different  cases,  "the  leadings  of 
Providence"  had  been  perfectly  manifest,  and  yet  Divine 
Providence  could  not  effect  its  own  desired  end  ?  Then, 
Dr.  Thornwell  took  up  this  argument  from  the  leadings  of 
Providence,  and  tore  it  all  to  pieces.  Pie  said  Moses 
might  have  reasoned  that  the  leadings  of  Providence  were 
pointing    him    to    the    Egyptian    throne.     He    was    the 


FIVE  YEAES  OF  FAF.M  LIFE.  221 

adopted  son  of  the  kino;'s  roval  daughter.  He  had  every 
qualification  for  the  place,  and,  probably,  everybody  in 
Egypt  was  snre  of  his  succeeding  to  it;  but  Providence 
really  designed  him,  and  was  preparing  him,  for  a  very 
different  office.  We  are  not  competent  to  interpret  the 
leadings  of  Providence.  When  considered  by  us  most 
clear  in  favor  of  something  that  we  wish,  they  are,  often- 
times, not  the  real  expression  of  God's  purpose  and  plan. 
The  word  is  our  only  rule,  but  we  need  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  guide  us  in  applying  the  rule.  Even  Abraham,  when 
God  called  him  to  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  did  not  know 
what  really  was  the  divine  will,  until  the  very  moment 
when  about  to  put  the  knife  to  his  son's  throat.  So,  said 
Dr.  Thornwell,  Dr.  Palmer  cannot  know  what  is  to  be 
his  duty  respecting  this  call,  until  this  Synod's  vote  on 
the  solemn  question  before  us  shall  make  it  known  to  him. 
This  set  the  question  in  its  true  light  before  every  mem- 
ber of  the  body.  I  rose  and  asked  Dr.  Palmer  if  he  would 
consider  it  a  grievance  should  his  brethren  refuse  to  let 
him  have  his  manifest  preference  in  this  matter.  He 
answered  that  it  had  just  been  well  stated,  that  we  were, 
on  this  occasion,  the  appointed  exponents  of  the  divine 
will  to  him,  and  he  trusted  he  would  feel  it  no  grievance 
if  the  divine  will  were  to  bring  on  him  a  fever.  There 
was  immediate  silence  in  the  Synod ;  every  man  felt  that 
Palmer's  comparison  settled  the  question.  The  vote  was 
called  for,  and,  by  a  very  large  majority,  the  call  was  put 
into  his  hands  and  was  accepted.  Dr.  Thornwell  was  very 
much  aftected  as  the  voting  went  on.  I  happened  to  be 
sitting  by  his  side.  In  his  characteristic  simplicity,  and 
with  a  mournful  tone,  he  whispered,  "I  feel  as  if  I  were 
going  to  a  funeral."  Then  he  whispered  to  me  again,  "If 
the  vote  is  for  iSTew  Orleans,  I  shall  nominate  you  in  his 
place."  I  whispered  in  return,  "Oh  !  don't  do  that,  for  I 
should  not  be  able  to  accept."  In  a  little  while,  the  ques- 
tion of  a  successor  to  Dr.  Palmer  came  up,  and  Thorn- 
well went  straight  on  and  nominated  me,  and  I  was 
elected.  I  felt  very  much  as  I  did,  when,  at  the  college 
commencement  in  1853,  I  heard  him  making  certain  an- 
nouncements in  Latin  of  proceedings  by  the  trustees, 
amongst  them,  that  I  had  received  the  degree  of  Doctor 


222  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

of  Divinity.  I  took  what  he  said,  on  both  occasions,  as 
honor  put  on  me  by  one  whose  wondrous  intellect,  accom- 
panied, as  it  was,  with  learning,  both  profound  and  va- 
ried, were  never  matched  by  any  man  I  liave  personally 
known.  Of  course,  I  did  not  immediately  decline. 
Thornwell  had  taken  me  by  surprise.  I  could  not  but 
take  time  to  consider  the  question.  After  the  Synod  had 
adjourned,  whether  I  declined  earlier  or  later,  the  matter 
could  not  well  be  mended.  The  Synod  could  not  well  be 
called  together  for  another  election.  It  would  be  very 
expensive,  and,  perhaps,  impossible,  to  get  together  at 
any  place,  an  adequate  representation  of  the  whole  body. 
So,  therefore,  I  had  time  to  consider.  I  began  to  see  very 
soon  how  many  and  serious  were  the  difficulties  in  my 
way.  I  had  added  other  lands  to  my  original  purchase. 
Improvements,  numerous  and  varied,  had  been  com- 
menced, which  had  to  be  finished,  and  that  under  my  own 
eye.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  sell  my  plantation 
Avithout  serious  loss,  and,  to  put  it  under  the  care  of  an 
overseer  for  eight  months  in  the  year,  while  I  should  be 
in  Columbia,  was  objectionable  in  many  respects.  But 
my  greatest  difficulty  I  have  not  jet  stated.  My  brother 
William's  death,  in  1853,  made  it  necessary  for  me  to 
become  the  guardian  of  his  family,  and  to  take  charge  of 
the  education  of  his  five  young  children.  I  had  induced 
his  widow  to  bring  them  and  live  at  Pendleton.  I  could 
not  go  and  leave  them  behind.  I  had  to  sell  her  place,  and 
that  without  any  loss.  Had  I  given  out  publicly  that  I 
was  compelled  to  move,  without  delay,  to  Cohmibia,  I 
would  have  been  put  to  great  disadvantage  as  to  the  sale 
of  her  property.  Had  I  committed  it  to  the  care  of  some 
agent,  and  gone  off  to  Columbia,  it  would  still  have  be- 
come a  forced  sale,  involving  loss.  Thus  I  acted  under 
the  strong  conviction  that  there  was  no  providential  duty 
that  would  require  this  neglect  of  her  interest  at  my 
hands. 

On  the  other  hand,  my  farm  life  and  outdoor  occupa- 
tions for  some  years  had  greatly  benefited  my  sight.  I 
had  no  wish  to  continue  farming,  now  that  the  necessity 
seemed  to  have  passed  away.  I  had  become  anxious  to 
return  to  the  proper  business  of  a  gospel  minister.     To 


CALLED  TO  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY.        223 

teacli  the  history  and  politv  of  the  church  would  be  an 
occupation  much  to  my  taste.  If  Thornwell  desired  me 
as  a  co-professor,  I  was  much  more  than  willing  to  stand 
at  his  back.  So  the  call  I  had  received  was  every  way 
very  attractive  to  me.  But,  just  here,  I  have  to  state 
that,  during  my  whole  life,  I  had  been  obliged,  on  many 
important  occasions,  to  disappoint  my  honored  father. 
He  wanted  me  to  go  to  Germany  and  become  a  great 
scholar,  but  I  felt  bound  to  decline  his  generous  oifers, 
and  become  a  foreign  missionary.  When  I  was  obliged 
to  leave  my  foreign  work,  I  know  I  disappointed  his  ex- 
pectations, although  he  did  not,  as  I  had  feared,  make 
any  opj)Osition  to  my  becoming  a  negro  missionary  in 
Charleston ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  bought  for  me  a 
fine  house  to  live  in.  Hardly  had  he  settled  me  in  this 
nice  dwelling  than  the  state  of  my  eyes  compelled  me  to 
leave  Charleston,  and  the  house  was  thrown  on  his  hands 
to  be  disposed  of.  Very  soon  he  established  me  on  a  very 
desirable  farm  and  dwelling  near  Pendleton;  and  here, 
now,  I  was  going  to  propose  another  new  and  altogether 
unexpected  plan  of  action !  What  else  could  he  think  of 
me  than  that  I  was  a  rolling  stone  that  never  would 
gather  any  moss  ?  He  was,  indeed,  very  much  opposed  to 
this  new  idea,  and  so  were  my  brothers  and  the  whole 
family. 

It  was  not  possible  for  me  to  run  counter,  very  soon,  to 
all  the  opposition  Avhich  I  met.  But  I  hoped,  after  some 
delay,  to  overcome  it  all.  Yet,  as  I  look  back  now,  over 
more  than  forty  years,  what  I  should  have  done  was  to 
have  declined  the  call  made  by  the  Synod. 

I  was  elected  in  November,  1856.  On  the  7th  of  the 
next  month  I  received  from  Dr.  Girardeau  a  very  urgent 
letter,  giving  reasons  why  I  ought  to  accept  the  call.  It 
was  just  such  an  argument  as  one,  then  the  negro  mission- 
ary in  Charleston,  might  very  naturally  employ  with  the 
former  negro  missionary  in  Charleston  whom  he  had  suc- 
ceeded. It  was  to  impress  on  me  what  an  opportunity  I 
would  have  to  direct  the  minds  of  my  classes  in  the  Sem- 
inary to  this  great  field  of  negro  evangelization,  in  which 
we  were  both  so  much  interested.  At  the  opening  of  the 
next  year,  viz.,  on  the  27th  of  January,  1857,  Dr.  Breck- 


224  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

inridge  also  writes  me  from  Danville,  "I  hope  you  have 
gone  or  will  go  to  Columbia;  it  w^ould  take  long  to  tell 
why — but  it  seems  to  me  very  clear  you  should  go :  clear 
on  personal  accounts;  clear  on  public  accounts;  espe- 
cially clear  on  Seminary  accounts.  There  has  taken  place 
in  our  church  a  great  reaction  as  to  vital  religion  and  it? 
true  foundations  within  twenty  years;  and,  of  late,  that 
reaction  has  thrown  into  our  seminaries,  for  the  training 
of  our  ministers,  a  portion  of  its  OAvn  force,  to  which  it 
is  of  incalculable  importance  to  give  a  permanent  lodg- 
ment exactly  .there.  To  make  this  at  once  efficacious  and 
permanent  requires  more  than  one  man,  more  than  one 
frail  human  existence  in  each  seminary ;  while,  therefore, 
no  one  can  expect  more  from  Thornwell  than  I  do,  be- 
cause no  one  knows  more  thoroughly  how  great  a  work 
he  can  do,  I  feel  it  to  be  of  great  consequence  that  men 
like-minded  should  be  with  him,  to  stand  in  his  place  if 
he  falls,  to  work  to  the  same  great  ends  while  he  abides. 
As  to  special  facts,  I  know  nothing,  but  they  ought  to  be 
wonderfully  clear  and  powerful,  as,  it  seems  to  me,  to 
keep  you  from  this  Avork."  Both  these  letters  were  very 
impressive,  but,  on  the  10th  of  December,  1856,  Dr. 
Thornwell  had  sent  me  one  which  proved  much  more  so. 
He  says,  "In  relation  to  yourself,  the  difficulties  which 
are  gathering  or  have  gathered  around  you,  only  render 
your  duty  the  more  manifest.  Your  external  call  was 
clear  and  unambiguous  ;  it  was,  indeed,  very  remarkable. 
The  internal  one  must  be  equally  obvious,  if  you  will 
only  reflect  upon  the  state  of  your  mind  beforehand.  You 
wanted  the  door  open,  and  you  professed  a  willingness  to 
make  any  sacrifices  to  enter  it.  .  God  has  opened  it  and 
put  you  to  the  trial.  He  has  thought  you  worth  trying, 
and,  therefore,  father  and  brother  and  sister  are  permit- 
ted to  rise  up  against  you,  to  give  you  the  opportunity  of 
showing  that  his  voice  is  louder  in  your  ears  than  theirs. 
The  case  to  me  is  very  plain,  and  T  shall  really  trendile 
for  you  if  you  decline.  Your  mouth  must  be  shut  against 
any  prayer,  hereafter,  for  a  field  of  ministerial  labor. 
God  may  say,  'I  called  and  you  refused.'  "  If,  in  any 
way,  it  were  proper  to  speak  of  myself  in  connection  with 
the  three  "mighties,"  Farel,   Calvin  and   Thornwell,   I 


CALLED  TO  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY.        225 

luio-ht  say  Thornwell's  expostulation  with  me  and  liis 
awful  reference  to  the  ear  of  the  Almighty  being  shut 
against  any  future  prayer  of  mine,  terrified  me  as  much 
as  Farel's  denunciation  of  God's  wrath  against  Calvin,  if 
he  did  not  immediately  begin  to  preach  at  Geneva,  ter- 
rified the  reformer,  and  at  once  began  to  control  his  con- 
duct. I  certainly  did  want  to  be  set  free  from  my  en- 
tanglements, and,  very  mercifully,  the  day  of  my  deliver- 
ance was  nigh. 

A  hint  was  somehow  conveyed  to  me  that  Mrs.  John  C. 
Calhoun,  widow  of  our  great  Senator,  admired  the  place 
of  my  sister,  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  which  she 
had  just  purchased  a  cottage,  and  had  come  to  live  there. 
I  determined  at  once  to  ride  over  and  see  if  I  could  sell 
the  property  to  her.  The  sun  was  setting  as  I  mounted 
my  horse,  and,  if  I  ever  did  pray  in  my  life,  I  besought 
the  Master,  as  I  rode  along,  that  he  would  prosper  me  on 
my  errand,  and  so  enable  me  to  obey  his  providential  call. 
Mrs.  Calhoun  admitted  that  she  liked  the  place,  but  ob- 
jected to  the  price  I  asked.  I  explained  to  her  that  I  was 
in  such  a  position  of  responsibility  as  absolutely  prevented 
my  reducing  it  at  all.  I  told  her  the  original  price  of  the 
house  and  seventy-five  acres  of  land,  with  the  repairs  and 
improvements  that  I  had  made,  had  cost  my  sister  six 
thousand  and  four  hundred  dollar?,  and  that  I  was  bound 
to  obtain  exactly  that  sum  to  a  cent.  She  felt  the  force 
of  this  announcement,  and  only  replied,  "But  what  shall 
I  do  with  my  cottage  ?"  I  asked  her  what  was  the  price 
of  that  cottage,  with  the  acres  attached  to  it,  and  she  told 
me  twenty-five  hundred  dollars.  I  said  immediately, 
"Mrs.  Calhoun,  I  will  take  your  cottage,  at  that  price,  as 
part  payment  of  my  sister's  property."  So  much  was  set- 
tled then.  I  rode  home  thankful  and  rejoicing.  IText 
day  I  rode  to  the  village  and  sold  Mrs.  Calhoun's  cottage 
for  twenty-five  hundred  dollars  to  Mr.  John  T.  Sloan. 
The  necessary  papers  and  securities  were  all  at  once  ar- 
ranged, and  every  installment  was  paid  by  each  party, 
with  interest,  on  the  very  day  it  became  due,  Mr.  John 
Lorton  acting  as  Mrs.  Calhoun's  agent.  I  was  once  more 
a  free  man.  My  father  said  to  my  brother  Robert,  "John 
managed  that  affair  very  well."     Far  better  than  this,  it 


226  MY   LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

was  evident  that  God  had  not  yet  slnit  his  ear  to  my 
prayers.  I  repaired,  without  delay,  to  Cohimhia,  and  be- 
gan my  work  in  the  Seminary,  continuing  it  till  the  vaca- 
tion in  May.  The  following  month  I  purchased  a  house,^ 
and,  at  the  close  of  the  vacation,  I  moved  my  sister's  fam- 
ily, together  with  mine,  to  Columbia. 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

Literary    Work,    '\Vritinc4,    Editixg^    Publishing. — 
Seminary  Life. — Calvin^s  Institutes. 

THE  first  religious  newspaper  published  in  Charles- 
ton, that  I  remember,  was  the  Charleston  Observer^ 
which  began  to  be  published  somewhere  about  1825, 
though  I  have  an  indistinct  impression  that  there  was  one 
which  preceded  this.  The  editor  of  the  Charleston  Ob- 
server was  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Gildersleeve,  a  strong  man 
and  a  sound  Presbyterian,  whose  son  is  the  eminent  Pro- 
fessor Gildersleeve  of  Johns  Hopkins  University.  The 
editor  became  quite  prominent  and  very  useful  in  the  Old 
and  Xew  School  controversy.  He  had,  at  one  time,  also,  a 
little  tilt  with  John  England,  the  famous  Roman  Cath- 
olic bishop  of  Charleston,  in  which  he  came  oif  quite  vic- 
torious. Here  it  occurs  to  me  to  introduce  a  laughable 
incident  of  his  useful  life.  He  opened,  at  one  time,  a 
private  school  for  young  ladies,  which  he  kept  on  his  own 
premises.  One  of  my  sisters,  now  seventy-six  years  old, 
was  a  pupil,  and  she  remembers  seeing  the  eminent  pro- 
fessor, then  a  small  lad,  come  in  to  recite  his  Latin  lesson. 
There  was  a  big  round  table  sitting  in  the  middle  of  the 
school-room.  Basil  either  did  not  know  or  would  not 
study  his  lesson,  and  the  Rev.  Benjamin  rose  to  chastise 
the  lad,  who  ran  round  the  table,  and  his  father  after  him 
in  successful  pursuit.  All  this  in  the  presence  of  a  lot  of 
young  ladies  who,  probably,  sympathized  more  with  the 
boy  than  with  their  preceptor.  But,  behold!  what  grand 
results  have  followed  that  strict  parental  discipline. 
Here,  now,  is  both  comfort  for  a  boy  coming  under  faith- 
ful discipline,  and  encouragement  for  a  teacher  faithful 
enough  to  administer  it. 

After  a  long  and  successful  editorial  career  in  Charles- 
ton, Mr.  Gildersleeve  was  induced  to  remove  to  Rich- 
mond, Va.,  and  become  editor  of  the  Watchman  and  Ob- 
server. 


228  my  life  and  times. 

"The  Southekx  Peesbyteriax  Weekly/'' 

After  Mr.  Gildersleeve's  departure  from  Charleston, 
the  Synod  of  Georgia,  in  1846,  determined  to  issue  a  suc- 
cessor to  the  Observer.  Early  in  1847,  at  a  meeting  in 
Milledgeville,  the  Rev.  Washington  Baird  was  appointed 
editor,  and  the  above  mentioned  name  chosen  for  the 
paper.  The  first  number  appeared  at  Milledgeville  on 
the  25th  of  August.  It  was  removed  to  Charleston  at  the 
end  of  1852,  and  the  first  number  from  that  oflSce  was 
issued  January  5,  1853,  Rev.  Washington  Baird  still  its 
editor,  Baird  and  Frazer,  proprietors,  W.  Y.  Paxton, 
publisher.  On  April  6,  1854,  the  proprietorship  was 
changed,  and  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  considerable 
number  of  gentlemen  in  the  different  Presbyterian 
churches  of  the  city;  Rev.  J.  L.  Kirkpatriek,  D.  D.,  edi- 
tor, and  Rev.  Edwin  Cater,  assistant  editor.  Mr.  Cater 
withdrew  December  7,  1854,  and  in  July,  1857,  Rev.  B. 
E.  Lanneau  took  his  place.  Dr.  Kirkpatriek,  being  pastor 
of  the  Glebe  Street  church  in  Charleston,  would  not  be- 
come editor  Avithout  the  assured  help  of  some  regular  con- 
tributors, and  the  writer  became  one  of  these  from  May  4, 
1854.  Dr.  Kirkpatrick's  editorship  continued  until  the 
close  of  1857.  From  that  time  the  Rev.  H.  B.  Cunning- 
ham became  its  editor  and  proprietor.  From  him  it  was 
purchased  by  the  writer,  and  removed  to  Columbia,  the 
first  number  appearing  ISTovember  1,  1860.  The  Rev. 
A.  A.  Porter  became  its  editor,  and  was  to  be  supported 
by  the  paper,  and  later  the  Rev.  James  Woodrow  under- 
took to  look  after  the  accounts  and  finances,  and  for  this 
service  was  admitted  as  part  proprietor.  Dr.  Thornwell 
became  a  frequent  contributor,  and,  by  his  aid  and  that  of 
others,  its  eminent  editor  soon  gave  it  a  high  reputation 
and  a  wide  circulation.  We  made  no  money,  however, 
and  the  war  between  the  States  coming  on  soon,  it  was 
kept  up  with  great  difficulty,  until  the  burning  of  Colum- 
bia by  William  Tecumseh  Sherman  gave  it  a  death  blow. 
Dr.  Woodrow  had  the  courage  to  revive  the  paper  in 
1865,  overcoming  many  and  very  great  difficulties.  His 
brother-in-law.  Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  R.  Wilson,  and  Jesse  A. 
Ansley,  Esq.,  of  Augusta,  with  the  ^^Titer,  became  his 
<?oadjutors.     The  expense  of  its  publication  under  the  cir- 


LITERAEY  WORK.  229 

cumstances  was  very  heavy  for  men  whom  the  w^ar  had 
ruined.  The  first  named  two  were  obliged  soon  to  retire, 
and,  after  a  very  few  years,  the  writer  was  also  obliged  to 
forsake  its  courageous  reestablisher.  But  he  was  deter- 
mined that  it  should  live,  and,  for  more  than  a  quarter  of 
a  century,  continued  its  publication,  editing  it  with  con- 
summate ability.  The  Rev.  W.  S.  Bean  then  became  its 
proprietor  and  editor,  removed  it  to  Clinton,  S.  C,  but, 
after  a  few  years,  gave  place  to  J.  F.  and  W.  S.  Jacobs,  as 
proprietors  and  publishers.  The  Rev.  J.  Ferdinand  Ja- 
cobs is  its  editor-in-chief,  with  seven  associate  editors  in 
various  Synods.  It  bids  fair  to  run  an  honorable  and 
useful  career. 

"The  Southern  Peesbytebiats"  Review.'" 

In  June,  1847,  Rev.  Dr.  George  Howe,  with  Dr.  Thorn- 
well  and  the  Rev.  B.  M.  Palmer,  established  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review  in  Columbia.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Thomas  Smyth,  of  Charleston,  assisted  them  greatly 
from  the  beginning,  and  constantly,  down  to  the  time  of 
his  lamented  death.  The  writer's  name  also  appears  in 
the  first  volume,  and  he  soon  became  co-editor  and  fre- 
quent contributor,  and  continued  as  such  down  to  the  end 
of  the  thirty-sixth  volume,  when  the  publication  was  sus- 
pended. On  the  list  of  its  frequent  contributors  appear 
the  names  of  Dabney,  Leighton  Wilson,  J,  A.  Waddell, 
Girardeau,  Lefevre,  Peck,  Stuart  Robinson,  A.  W.  Miller, 
A.  A.  Porter,  James  A.  Lyon,  Enoch  Pond,  J.  T.  L.  Pres- 
ton and  Bocock ;  whilst  there  were  also  occasional  articles 
from  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  Professor  Joseph  LeConte,  Pro- 
fessor Gildersleeve,  J.  R.  Wilson,  Barbour,  Quarles,  J.  L. 
Martin,  S.  T.  Martin,  Samuel  M.  Smith,  B.  B.  Warfield 
and  other  well-known  and  valuable  writers,  too  numerous 
to  be  named.  Running  from  1847  to  1885,  its  thirty- 
six  volumes  cover  a  very  interesting  term  of  years.  Polit- 
ical, educational,  moral,  ecclesiastical,  theological  discus- 
sions were  rife  in  those  times.  The  war  was  coming  on, 
and  the  ideas  that  led  to  it  stirred  men's  minds  and  hearts. 
The  Presbyterian  Church,  like  other  evangelical  denomi- 
nations, was  to  be  divided.  A  branch  of  it  was  to  arise 
more  soimd  in  its  theology  and  more  scriptural   in  its 


-^30  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

order  than  its  elder  sister  had  come  to  be.  The  organiza- 
tion and  the  progress  of  this  new  body  and  the  history  of 
its  revision  of  the  Form  of  Government,  Eules  of  Disci- 
pline and  Directory  of  Worship  must  needs  provoke  con- 
sideration and  discussion.  All  these  subjects  are  ably 
treated  by  different  writers  in  successive  volumes  of  the 
Soutlieni  Presbyterian  Revieiv,  and  they  who  possess  a 
full  set  of  this  venerable  publication  know  how  to  value  it. 

Teaching  Church  History  and  Church  Polity. 

1  gave  instruction,  chiefly  by  text-books,  on  these  sub- 
jects for  seventeen  years  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Columbia.  Whatever  I  know  of  either  I  learned  by 
teaching  it.  When,  after  a  four  years'  course,  I  grad- 
uated at  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  I  had,  like  the 
graduates  ordinarily,  only  a  smattering  of  all  the  differ- 
ent subjects  there  so  ably  taught.  It  cannot  well  be 
otherwise  for  the  ordinary  student.  The  course  of  in- 
struction is  altogether  too  wide  to  be  thoroughly  taken  in 
during  three  years.  Twelve  years'  residence  as  a  mis- 
sionary among  the  Armenians  and  other  Christian 
churches  of  the  East  added  something,  of  course,  to  my 
knowledge  of  these  subjects ;  but  it  was  as  a  professor  in 
the  Seminary  I  became  really  a  student  of  them.  The 
truth  is,  the  best  way  to  learn  anything  is  to  begin  to 
teach  it.  To  educate  means  to  educe,  that  is,  to  draw 
forth  or  lead  forth.  Por  the  teacher  to  draw  forth  de- 
pends very  much  upon  the  scholar ;  but  every  earnest 
teacher  will  necessarily  educate,  that  is,  lead  forth,  his 
own  mind.  I  know  I  myself  learned  a  good  many  things 
during  these  seventeen  years  of  teaching,  but  how  much 
I  taught  my  classes  I  cannot  guess.  This  much  I  know 
well,  however :  woe  to  the  Presbyterian  minister  who 
imagines  that  he  knows  it  all  when  he  has  gone  through 
a  full  course  at  the  Seminary,  and  does  not  then  begin  in 
earnest  to  teach  himself  all  he  can  possiljly  learn  during 
his  whole  ministerial  life  on  every  part  of  his  course  at 
the  Seminary ! 

Text-Books  of  Church  History. 

Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History  is  a  learned  and  very 
valuable  work,  but  I  soon  abandoned  it  as  mv  text-book. 


SEMIJfAEY  LIFE.  231 

althongli,  as  I  have  been  credibly  informed,  Addison 
Alexander  said  that,  after  trying  a  good  many  others,  he 
came  back  to  Mosheim,  as,  on  the  whole,  the  best  text-book 
for  his  use.  One  great  objection  to  it  was  its  chopping  up 
arbitrarily  into  successive  centuries  a  history  which  has 
a  continuous  life,  and  which  should  run  on  in  one  con- 
tinuous course.  His  treatment  of  the  subject  as  to  a  cer- 
tain round  of  points  in  every  particular  century  is  calcu- 
lated to  be  wearisome  to  the  student.  Moreover,  his  work 
is  confined  to  the  Christian  church,  whereas,  since  the 
church  began  at  the  very  fall  of  man,  its  history  should 
also  begin  there.  Professor  Kurtz's  Manual  of  Sacred 
History  and  his  text-book  of  church  history,  taken  to- 
gether, enabled  me  to  cover  the  whole  historv  from  the 
very  beginning.  His  Manual  carries  the  student  briefly, 
but  instructively,  through  the  Old  Testament  and  down  to 
the  coming  of  Christ.  His  second  work  is  also  a  brief, but 
a  sufficient,  guide  down  to  the  Reformation,  and  from  the 
Reformation  almost  to  the  present  time.  But  Professor 
Kurtz  is  a  Lutheran,  and  therefore  his  history  must  fail 
on  certain  points  to  be  satisfactory  to  a  Calvinistic 
teacher.  Another  extremely  valuable  text-book  of  church 
history  I  found  in  Killen's  Ancient  Church:  Its  History, 
Doct7'ine,  Worship  and  Constitution,  Traced  for  the 
First  Three  Hundred  Years.  The  author  of  this  most 
valuable  work  was  Dr.  William  Killen,  professor  of  Eccle- 
siastical Polity  and  Pastoral  Theology,  Belfast,  Ireland. 
This  work  was  published  by  Charles  Scribner  in  1851), 
and  formed  for  the  student  of  Church  History  a  capital 
introduction  to  the  subject  of  Church  Polity. 

Text-Books  on  Chukcii  Polity. 

Bannerman's  Church  of  Christ  is  a  valuable  work  on 
Church  Government,  and  both  interested  and  profited  my 
classes. 

The  Assertion  of  the  Government  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  by  Gillespie,  perhaps  the  very  foremost  man  in 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  although  the  youngest,  was 
also  introduced  to  my  classes,  and  was  very  useful  to 
them. 

But  when  I  began  my  life  in  the  Seminary,  Dr.  Thorn- 


232  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

well  said  that  he  was  carrying  his  classes  in  Theology 
through  the  first  three  books  of  Calvin's  Institutes,  and 
proposed  that  I  should  make  the  fourth  book  a  text-book 
on  the  subject  of  Church  Polity  and  the  Sacraments, 
"for/'  said  he,  "I  do  believe  in  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the 
sacrament."  I  acted  on  his  suggestion,  and  made  The 
Institutes  the  foundation  of  my  instructions  on  those  sub- 
jects, until  his  lamented  death,  in  1863,  necessarily  broke 
up  the  arrangement. 

AVhat  Calvin  says  on  the  first  of  these  two  topics  is 
briefly,  but  very  strongly,  set  forth.  The  principles  he 
lays  down  are  taken  directly  from  the  Scriptures,  and 
whoever  masters  his  statement  of  them  must  needs  be 
])oth  a  sound  and  well  furnished  Presbyterian. 

Pakt  I. — Calvin  on  Church  Goveenment. 

The  whole  treatise  is  in  three  parts :  First,  The  Church, 
in  thirteen  chapters;  second,  The  Sacraments,  six  chap- 
ters ;    third,  Civil  Government,  one  chapter. 

Of  the  thirteen  chapters  about  the  Church,  the  first 
three  portray  the  true  church  of  God  as  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures,  but  they  also  present  to  us,  by  way  of  con- 
trast, a  very  striking  and  vivid  picture  of  the  apostate 
church  of  Rome.  The  Fourth  Chapter  furnishes  Calvin's 
account  of  the  primitive  church. 

In  the  Fifth  Chapter  he  describes  how  utterly  the 
papacy  has  corrupted  the  original  form  of  government ; 
in  the  sixth  he  makes  plain  from  the  Scriptures  how  base- 
less is  the  fabric  of  the  Romish  See ;  and  in  the  seventh 
he  traces  the  beginning  and  rise  of  the  pontificate,  until  it 
reached  a  point  where  the  liberty  of  the  church  was  de- 
stroyed in  the  complete  overthrow  of  all  church  rule. 
These  three  chapters  I  pass  entirely  over  as  not  indisjien- 
sable  to  a  setting  forth  of  Calvin's  views  of  church  gov- 
ernment, which  is  all  that  I  propose.  This  omission  of 
what  he  says  about  Romish  errors  I  shall  freely  make  in 
all  the  remaining  chapters  wherever  it  occurs. 

Chapter  Eight  treats  of  Church  Power  as  to  Articles  of 
Faith  under  the  three  heads.  Doctrine,  Legislation,  and 
Jurisdiction.  The  ^inth  Chapter  discusses  the  Councils 
of  the  Church  and  their  authority  to  deliver  dogmas. 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  233 

Chapter  Ten  treats  of  the  Law-making;  Power.  Chapter 
Eleven  treats  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Church.  Chapter 
Twelve  treats  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  and  its  use 
in  censures  and  excommunication.  Chapter  Thirteen 
treats  of  Vows  and  the  danger  of  entanglement  by  them. 

As  to  the  sacraments,  I  shall,  in  like  manner,  aim  only 
at  a  summary  of  Calvin's  doctrine,  not  pretending  to  dis- 
cuss all  that  Rome  has  invented  about  the  sacraments. 

The  iirst  of  these  thirteen  chapters  on  the  Church  be- 
gins by  stating  the  church's  relation  to  God.  She  is  an 
institute  established  by  him  for  the  nourishment  of  our 
faith.  Then  follows  the  statement  of  the  church's  relation 
to  us.  She  is  our  mother,  of  whom  we  are  born  and  by 
whom  we  are  nourished,  trained  and  governed  until  we 
are  divested  of  mortal  flesh. 

In  the  very  outset  we  here  find  Calvin  deducing  from 
Scripture  the  principle  of  jus  divinum  preshyterii.  God 
'^has  appointed  pastors  and  teachers.  He  has  invested 
them  with  authority  (eos  aiictoritate  instruxit) ."  They 
get  it  from  him  and  not  from  the  people.  Certainly,  it  is 
incredible  that  God,  who  is  a  jealous  God,  should  be  in- 
different to  the  order  of  his  church,  or  that  Christ  should 
be  a  king,  and  not  reveal  any  organization  for  his  king- 
dom. 

He  goes  on  to  teach  that  the  church  is  to  be  considered 
in  two  aspects,  one  as  visible,  the  other  as  invisible,  and 
that  God  has  never  had  but  one  church  on  the  earth,  being 
the  one  true  body  of  the  one  true  Head,  Jesus  Christ. 

He  then  proceeds  to  teach  from  Scripture  that  the 
church,  even  considered  as  visible,  is  our  mother ;  is  to  be 
had  in  great  reverence ;  has  the  word  and  the  sacraments 
lodged  with  her ;.  that,  apart  from  this  word  and  these 
sacraments,  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation, 
so  that  abandonment  of  the  visible  church  is  sin,  and  if 
unrepented,  will  be  fatal ;  to  depart  from  her  is  to  go 
away  from  the  truth  which  alone  can  save ;  for  it  is  to 
separate  from  a  body  of  which  Christ  is  the  Head. 

Still  further  it  is  deduced  from  Scripture  that  we  must 
sul)mit  to  be  trained  in  and  by  the  visible  church ;  that 
the  conflict  of  the  ungodly  in  all  ages,  has  been  against 
being  thus  trained ;    that  to  neglect  this  public  ministry 


234 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


for  private  reading  of  the  word  is  to  dissolve  communion 
with  tlie  clmrcli ;  that  the  communion  of  saints  is  de- 
stroyed unless,  with  one  consent,  we  observe  the  order 
God  has  appointed  in  his  church  for  learnino-  and  making 
progress ;  that,  to  attempt  any  worship  not  ordered  by 
God,  is  to  introduce  adventitious  fictions  {adventitia  fig- 
menta),  one  church  after  one  sort  and  another  after  an- 
other, all  alike  unwarranted  and  unacceptable,  to  the  de- 
struction of  church  unity,  because  that  requires  the  strict 
observance  of  the  appointed  order. 

In  Part  Second  of  this  First  Chapter,  Calvin  treats 
more  fully  of  the  church  in  the  two  aspects  in  M'hich  the 
Scriptures  present  her.  First,  the  true  invisible  church 
consists  of  all  the  saints  or  real  believers  now  on  the 
earth,  and  also  all  the  elect  from  the  beginning.  The 
visible  church  consists  of  the  whole  body  of  those  who 
profess  and  observe  the  Christian  religion,  and  their  chil- 
dren. This  body  contains  many  hypocrites,  tolerated  for 
the  present.  Calvin  teaches  that  we  are  to  believe  the 
invisible,  but  venerate  the  visible  and  cultivate  her  com- 
munion. God  has  given  us  marks  by  which  to  know  the 
visible  church,  not  applicable  to  individuals,  but  only  to 
bodies.  For  individuals  we  are  to  exercise  the  judgment 
of  charity,  because  the  most  abandoned  and  despaired  of 
are  sometimes  by  his  grace  recalled  to  life. 

The  marks  of  a  true  visible  church  are  the  word 
preached  and  heard  sincerely,  and  the  sacraments  ad- 
ministered in  their  integrity.  Any  ecclesiastical  body 
which  shows  these  marks  we  must  accept,  for  Christ  has 
promised  to  be  there,  and  that  his  word  shall  produce 
fruit.  Thus  we  apply  the  marks  to  churches,  but  indi- 
viduals we  must  treat  as  brethren,  until  legitimately  de- 
prived of  a  place  among  the  people  of  God. 

In  Part  Third  of  this  First  Chapter,  Calvin  treats  of 
The  Necessity  of  Cleaving  to  the  Church  Catholic  and  of 
The  Refutation  of  Schismatics.  The  church  catholic 
(that  is,  universal)  consists  of  the  multitude  of  professors 
in  all  nations. 

The  foundation  of  this  necessity  is  the  value  God  sets 
upon  communion  with  his  church.  No  man  may  with 
impunity  spurn  her  authority,  or  reject  her  admonitions, 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  235 

or  resist  her  counsels,  or  make  sport  of  her  censures,  far 
less  revolt  from  her  and  violate  her  unity.  Whoso  con- 
tumaciously alienates  himself  from  any  church  in  which 
true  ministry  and  sacraments  are  maintained,  God  re- 
gards as  a  deserter  of  religion.  To  violate  her  authority  he 
considers  the  impairing  of  his  own.  She  is  called  "House 
of  God,"  ''Pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  "Spouse  of 
Christ,"  "His  hody,"  "His  fullness."  To  forsake  her  is 
to  aim  at  destroying  his  truth,  and  is  a  perfidious  viola- 
tion of  the  sacred  marriage  he  has  condescended  to  con- 
tract with  us. 

The  constant  effort  of  Satan  is  to  delete  and  efface  these 
marks,  formerly  by  causing  the  disappearance  of  preach- 
ing, latterly  by  bringing  the  ministry  into  contempt.  He 
refers  here  to  Papists  on  the  one  hand  and  Anabaptists  on 
the  other. 

We  are  never  to  discard  a  church  where  pure  ministry 
of  word  and  sacraments  exist,  though  it  may  teem  with 
nimierous  faults ;  for  every  defect  of  doctrine  is  not 
fatal,  e.  g.,  the  doctrine  of  intermediate  state  is  not  vital, 
like  that  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  We  must  overlook 
some  defects,  otherwise  we  shall  love  no  church  at  all, 
since  there  is  no  man  not  involved  in  some  mists  of  igno- 
rance. Yet  we  must  not  patronize  minute  errors,  but 
strive  to  remove  and  correct  in  an  orderly  way. 

Of  errors  in  conduct  we  must  be  still  more  tolerant,  not 
like  Cathari  and  Donatists  of  old,  or  Anabaptists  later. 

In  the  fifteen  succeeding  sections  of  this  chapter  Calvin 
there  states,  and  very  conclusively  refutes  from  Scrip- 
ture, all  schismatical  objections  to  his  doctrine  made  by 
the  ancient  Cathari,  Donatists  and  Xovatians. 

Chapter  Second  presents  a  comparison  of  a  false  and 
the  true  church.  First,  it  gives  a  description  of  a  spuri- 
ous church,  with  refutation  of  its  errors.  Xext  there  is 
given  answer  to  popish  accusation  against  the  orthodox, 
of  heresy  and  scliism,  with  a  description  of  churches  then 
under  the  papacy. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  shown  that  wherever 
the  word  and  sacraments  are  administered  entire  and  un- 
impaired, no  errors  of  conduct  or  no  trifling  defects  of  ad- 
ministration   should    make    us    regard    it    as    s^^urious. 


236  MY  LIFE  AND  Ti:srES, 

Trilling  errors  are  such  as  do  not  corrupt  fundamental 
doctrine  or  impair  the  institution  of  the  sacrament ;  but 
when  falsehood  forces  its  way  into  the  citadel,  the  church 
dies  as  certainly  as  when  a  man's  throat  is  cut.  In  Eplie- 
sians  ii.  20,  the  church  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  but  if  the  foundation  is  destroyed, 
the  church  must  be  subverted.  Contrariwise,  in  1  Tim- 
othy iii.  15,  the  church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth ;  that  is  to  say,  the  church  upholds  and  holds  forth 
the  truth ;  the  church  is  a  lighthouse ;  but  there  is  no 
church  where,  instead  of  light  shining  from  the  top,  lying 
is  in  the  ascendancy. 

iSTow,  under  the  papacy,  instead  of  the  ministry  of  the 
word,  there  is  a  government  which  extinguishes  or  sup- 
presses light ;  instead  of  the  Lord's  supper,  the  foulest 
sacrilege;  instead  of  the  worship  of  God,  a  mass  of  in- 
tolerable superstition.  So,  if  we  decline  a  fatal  share  in 
such  wickedness,  we  run  no  risk  of  separating  ourselves 
from  the  true  church. 

But  the  papists  claim  that  theirs  is  the  only  church  in 
the  world,  and  all  who  depart  are  schismatics  or  heretics. 
Their  proof  is  a  perpetual  succession  of  bishops — men 
Avho  of  old  founded  churches,  and  shed  their  blood  as 
martyrs,  of  whom  old  annals  in  Italy,  Gaul  and  Spain 
tell,  and  that  Irenanis,  Tertullian,  Origen  and  Augustine 
and  others  valued  this  succession  so  highly.  But  I  ask 
them,  why  not  quote  Africa,  Egypt  and  all  Asia  ?  They 
answer,  in  them  the  succession  was  broken.  So  it  is  the 
succession  on  which  they  build.  Then  I  ask  them,  why 
not  acknowledge  the  Greeks  who  have  the  succession  ? 
They  answer,  the  Greeks,  by  revolt  from  the  apostolic  see, 
have  lost  their  privilege.  But  do  not  those  much  more 
deserve  to  lose  it  who  revolt  from  Christ  ? 

The  pretence  of  Rome  is  like  that  of  the  Jews,  who,  be- 
cause of  their  having  the  temple  ceremonies  and  priest- 
hood, were  contident  they  were  the  true  church  ;  but  when 
they  C(»n'ni)tod  his  worship,  God  removed  it  elsewhere. 
iSTow,  if  he  forsook  his  own  temple  for  this,  much  more 
will  he  not  abide  with  these  who  have  only  the  semldance 
of  a  church.  Paul,  in  Romans  ix.-xii.,  says  that  the  Jews, 
being  enemies  of  the  truth,  were  no  longer  God's  people 


CAI-VIN  S   INSTITUTES. 


237 


or  church.  Succession  is  of  no  vahie  where  conduct  does 
riot  correspond,  and  posterity  is  deprived  of  all  honor 
when  thev  revolt  from  their  originals.  Caiaphas  was  no 
true  successor  of  x\aron,  nor  Caligula,  Xero,  or  Helio- 
gabalus  of  Brutus,  Scipio,  or  Camillus.  Of  all  places,  it  is 
most  absurd  in  the  government  of  the  church  to  put  suc- 
cession in  persons.  The  fathers  appealed  to  by  the  papacy 
always  condenm  new  error  by  pointing  out  how^  it  was 
opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles.  In  fine,  the 
papists  have  substituted  for  the  spouse  of  Christ  a  vile 
prostitute. 

It  is  by  a  test  which  is  unequivocal,  distinctly  visible, 
infallible  and  indispensable,  that  Christ  points  out  his 
church,  viz.,  his  word  and  sacraments.  He  says,  ''Every 
one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice."  Moreover,  he 
tells  us  his  church  is  founded,  not  on  the  judgment  of  men 
or  on  priesthood,  but  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets.  Thus  we  are  enabled  to  distin- 
guish infallibly  Babylon  from  Jerusalem,  and  a  con- 
spiracy of  Satan  from  the  church  of  Christ. 

They  charge  us  with  heresy  and  schism ;  but  they  are 
heretics  who  dissent  from  the  church,  and  they  are  schis- 
matics who  destroy  its  unity^  for  the  church  is  held  to- 
gether by  sound  doctrine  and  brotherly  charity.  Augus- 
tine says  heresy  breaks  the  first  of  these  two  bonds,  and 
schism  the  second ;  but  the  second  depends  on  the  first. 
When  Paul  exhorts  to  unity,  he  makes  the  foundation  of  it 
to  be  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism ;  and  when  he  ex- 
horts to  be  of  one  mind,  it  is  the  mind  of  Christ,  teaching 
us  that  where  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  absent  it  is  a  faction 
of  the  ungodly. 

Cyprian  places  unity  in  the  head — one  root,  many 
branches ;  one  fountain,  many  streams ;  one  sun,  many 
rays.  Cyprian  constantly  calls  us  back  to  the  Head. 
Heresy  comes  from  forsaking  the  Head. 

As  to  our  being  schismatics,  they  expelled  us  with 
anathemas,  just  as  the  apostles  Avere  put  out  of  the  syna- 
gogues, whieli  then  were  yet  lawful  churches.  But  sup- 
pose, not  being  excommunicated,  any  have  witlidraA\Ti 
from  Kome:  they  are  not  schismatics,  because  it  behooved 
to  forsake  her  to  o-et  near  to  Christ. 


238  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

How  sliall  Ave  compare  Romo  with  Israel  as  delineated 
by  the  prophets  'i  That  -was  bad  ciioiigh ;  this  is  far 
worse.  That  was  partly  apostate,  but  God,  in  mercy,  still 
continued  there  his  word  and  sacraments.  They  still  had 
doctrine  in  the  law,  wutli  the  ministry  of  prophets  and 
priests  and  circumcision.  But  who  can  give  the  name  of 
church  to  this  body,  where  the  word  and  ministry  are 
totally  destroyed  ? 

The  defection  amongst  Jews  M-as  gradual,  and  not 
so  rapid  in  Judah  as  in  Israel ;  but  in  both  by  the 
same  means,  viz.,  corrupting  worship  by  superstitious 
additions  after  becoming  degenerate  by  superstitious 
opinions.  In  Judah  remained  a  true  church  as  long  as 
the  doctrine  of  the  law",  the  priesthood  and  the  rites  God 
had  established  continued  there.  In  Judah,  some  kings 
wicked,  some  theocratic ;  in  Israel,  matters  bad  before 
Ahab,  worse  afterwards — and  all  the  kings  idolatrous. 

Papists  must  admit  that  things  are  as  bad  with  them 
as  with  Israel  under  Jeroboam,  idolatry  grosser,  doctrine 
impurer.  They  make  two  demands  on  us :  first,  join  with 
their  prayers,  sacrifices,  etc. ;  secondly,  give  to  their 
church  the  honor  due  to  Christ's  church.  In  answer  to  the 
first  demand,  Calvin  admits  that  the  prophets  did  not  sep- 
arate from  temple  worship  in  Jerusalem ;  but  they  were 
not  compelled  there  to  join  in  anythino;  God  had  not  insti- 
tuted. In  Rome  we  must  partake  of  idolatry.  A  fair 
comparison  would  be  the  worship  of  the  Romish  church 
with  that  of  Israel  under  Jeroboam.  Circumcision  re- 
mained, also  sacrifices  and  the  law;  yet,  because  of  in- 
vented and  forbidden  modes  of  worship  (commentitios 
ac  vetitos  cultus),  God  disapproved  of  all  done  there. 
Show  us  one  jDrophet  or  pious  man  that  once  worshipped 
at  Bethel. 

It  would  be  still  more  difticult  to  comply  with  the  sec- 
ond demand,  for,  considering  the  church  as  one  whose 
judgment  we  must  revere,  whose  authority  we  must  bow 
to,  whose  admonitions  we  must  obey,  whose  disci])line  we 
must  dread  and  whose  conmiunion  we  must  religiously 
cultivate,  if  we  call  theirs  the  church,  then  we  must  yield 
subjection  and  obedience.  Calvin  willingly  yields  to 
them  only  what  prophets  yielded  to  Judah  and  Israel  in 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  239 

their  day  (when  their  case  was  not  so  bad  as  Rome's),  viz., 
that  these  meetings  were  profane  conventicles,  to  assent 
to  which  was  to  abjure  God.  If  those  were  churches,  then 
Elijah,  Micaiah,  etc.,  in  Israel,  and  the  like  in  Judah, 
were  aliens  from  God.  If  those  were  churches,  then  the 
church  is  no  more  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth.  Meet- 
ings of  papists  cannot  be  called  churches  because  then  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  would  be  with  them,  and  what  they 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven.  If  they  are 
churches,  then  no  badge  remains  to  distinguish  meetings 
of  the  faithful  from  conventions  of  Turks. 

Still,  we  deny  not  to  Rome  vestiges  of  the  church  as  in 
Israel.  God's  covenant  stood  by  its  own  strength,  even 
when  it  received  no  support  from  his  people ;  his  faith  was 
not  obliterated  by  their  perfidy;  circumcision  was  still 
a  true  sign  and  sacrament,  and  their  children  he  called 
his  own.  So  in  Gaul,  Italy,  Germany  and  other  lands, 
w^e  find  baptism  and  some  other  remains  of  the  church. 

So,  then,  we  deny  the  name  of  the  church  to  the  papacy, 
but  we  deny  not  that  there  are  churches  amongst  them. 
Antichrist  is  in  the  temple  of  God,  and  the  Pontiff  is 
leader  and  standard-bearer  of  that  wicked  kingdom.  His 
kingdom  is  such  as  not  to  destroy  either  the  name  of 
Christ  or  of  his  church.  Churches  there  are  which,  by 
sacrilegious  impiety,  he  has  profaned,  by  cruel  domina- 
tion oppressed,  by  deadly  doctrines  poisoned  and  almost 
slain,  where  Christ  lies  half  buried,  the  gospel  suppressed, 
piety  put  to  flight,  and  worship  of  God  almost  abolished. 
They  are  called  churches  because  their  Lord  preserves 
some  remains  of  his  people,  some  symbols  of  his  church ; 
yet  they  want  the  form  of  a  legitimate  assembly;  they 
represent  Babylon  rather  than  the  holy  city  of  God. 

The  third  chapter  treats  of  the  office-bearers  of  the 
church,  their  election  and  office.  1,  Preliminary  remarks 
on  the  usefulness  and  necessity  of  church  officers  (Sec. 
1-3)  ;  2,  The  persons  fulfilling  these  offices  (Sec.  4-10)  ; 
3,  Calling  and  ordination  of  office-bearers  (Sec.  10-16). 

Preliminary  Remarks. 
God  might  have  instructed  men  directly,  but  he  has 

chosen  to  do  it  through  the  ministry  of  some  of  them- 


240  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

selves.  Thus  he  shows  us  his  condescension,  making  men 
his  oracles,  and  from  their  months,  as  from  a  sacred  tem- 
ple, giving  forth  his  instrnctions.  lie  wonld  train  us  to 
docility.  We  are  to  hear  his  word  from  his  servants  as 
th(jngh  from  himself.  He  would  also  bind  men  in  mutual 
charity.  Some  of  us  are  to  be  teachers,  others  disciples. 
To  deposit  with  men  the  doctrine  of  eternal  life  and  sal- 
vation, that  it  might  be  communicated  from  one  to  the 
other,  was  to  Ijind  men  together  in  the  strongest  bond  of 
unitv. 

The  vahi(>  to  the  church  of  tliis  ministry  a])pears  in 
this,  that  by  it  (/hrist  fills  all  things  to  his  church.  By  it 
the  church  is  edified  and  grows.  It  is  more  useful  to  her 
than  meat  and  drink  and  light  to  mortal  life.  They  plot 
ruin  who  would  abolish  this  order  and  government. 

The  Scriptures  set  forth  the  dignity  of  this  ministry 
thus,  '"'How  licautiful  upon  the  mountains  are  the  feet  of 
him  tliat  bringeth  good  tidings,  that  publisheth  peace ;" 
"Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world  and  the  salt  of  the  earth;" 
"Who  heareth  you  heareth  me."  For  the  enlightenment 
of  Cornelius  an  angel  is  sent  from  heaven,  but  only  to  tell 
him  to  send  to  Joppa  for  Peter.  Similarly,  when  Christ 
appears  to  Paul  at  the  gate  of  Damascus,  instead  of  in- 
structing him  with  his  own  voice,  he  tells  him  to  go  to  the 
city  and  wait  until  a  man  named  Ananias  shall  come  and 
tell  him  what  to  do. 

The  Pekso^^s  Fulfilling  Chukcti  Offices. 

These  are  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and 
teachers.  Of  these  only  the  two  last  are  ordinary  and 
permanent.  The  others  were  raised  up  at  the  beginning 
by  the  Lord,  and  still  are  raised  up  as  becomes  necessary. 
The  apostles  were  men  sent  forth  to  preach  to  all  the 
world,  and  lay  everywdiere  the  foun<lations  of  the  church. 
Prophets  were  not  all  the  interpreters  of  the  divine  will, 
but  only  such  of  them  as  excelled  by  special  revelation. 
The  evangelists  were  inferior  in  rank  to  the  apostles,  but 
next  to  them  in  oifice,  and  acted  as  their  substitutes,  such 
as  Luke,  Timothy,  Titus,  and  perhaps  also  the  seventy. 
These  three  are  not  to  be  perpetual  officers,  but  only  to 
endure  so  Ions:  as  churches  were  to  be  formed  among  the 


calvin's  institutes.  241 

Gentiles  or  transferred  from  ]\Ioses  to  Christ.  But  I 
deny  not  that  God  raised  up  some  such  afterwards,  as 
has  been  done  in  our  time — apostles,  or  at  least  evan- 
gelists, to  bring  back  the  church  from  the  revolt  of  Anti- 
christ. The  office  I  call  extraordinary,  because  it  has  no 
place  in  churches  duly  constituted.  'Next  come  pastors 
and  teachers,  permanent  officers,  with  whom  the  church 
can  never  dispense.  Calvin  savs  he  thinks  the  difference 
between  them  is  that  teachers  preside  not  over  discipline, 
nor  sacraments,  nor  admonition,  nor  exhortation,  but 
only  see  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Word.  He  seems  to 
have  in  mind  the  professor  in  a  theological  school. 

Thus  classing  the  evangelist  with  the  apostle  and  the 
teacher  with  the  prophet,  we  have  two  like  offices,  corres- 
ponding in  a  manner  to  each  other.  The  prophetic  office 
was  the  more  excellent  because  of  inspiration,  but  the 
teacher's  office  had  almost  the  same  nature  and  altogether 
the  same  end.  In  like  manner,  the  twelve  excel  all  others 
in  rank  and  dignity;  for  although,  from  the  nature  of 
the  service  and  the  etymology  of  the  title,  all  ministers 
of  the  church  (ministri  ecclesiastici)  may  properly  be 
•called  apostles,  because  they  too  are  men  sent  by  the  Lord, 
and  are  his  messengers,  yet,  because  the  twelve  had  to 
deliver  a  new  and  extraordinary  message,  they  and  Paul 
had  to  be  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  title.  The  same 
name,  indeed,  is  given  by  Paul  to  Andronicus  and  Junia, 
because  they  were  of  note  among  the  apostles  ;  but  when  he 
would  speak  strictly,  he  confines  it  to  the  original  order ; 
and  this  is  the  common  use  of  Scrij)ture.  Still,  pastors 
(except  that  each  has  the  government  of  a  particular 
church  assigned  to  him)  have  the  same  function  as  apos- 
tles. The  nature  of  this  function  let  us  now  see  more 
clearly. 

When  our  Lord  sent  forth  the  apostles,  he  commis- 
sioned them  to  preach  the  gospel  and  baptize  believers. 
He  had  previously  commanded  them  to  administer  the 
Lord's  supper.  All  these  things  are  enjoined  upon  those 
who  succeed  to  the  apostolic  office.  Such  as  neglect  these 
duties  falsely  pretend  to  be  successors  of  the  apostles.  As 
to  the  duty  of  pastors,  Paul  says  they  are  minist.ers  of 
Christ  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  that  is,  of 


242  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  sacraments.  He  says  the  bishops  must  liohl  fast  the 
faithful  word.  But  he  also  says  that  ])astors  are  to 
preach  from  house  to  house  as  well  as  publicly,  and  quotes 
his  own  example,  speakinc;  to  the  Ephesian  elders.  In 
short,  what  apostles  do  to  the  whole  world  is  to  be  done  by 
the  pastor  for  a  single  church.  But  he  is  also  to  meet  in 
counsel  with  other  pastors,  to  settle  disturbances,  and 
consider  tlie  general  interests  of  the  church.  At  the  same 
time,  each  one  must  have  his  proper  duty  assigned,  not 
flocking  together  promiscuously  nor  capriciously  leaving 
the  churches  vacant.  And  this  arrangement  is  of  divine 
authority,  for  Paul  and  Barnal)as  ordained  elders  in  every 
church,  and  Titus  in  every  city.  The  pastor,  then,  is  not 
(glebae  addictus)  astricted  to  the  soil,  and  unable  to  move 
elsewhere,  only  this  must  be  regulated,  not  by  himself 
for  his  own  advantage,  but  by  public  authority  for  the 
good  of  the  church. 

In  giving  the  name  of  bishops,  presbyters,  pastors  and 
ministers  indiscriminately  to  those  who  govern  churches, 
Calvin  says  he  has  done  it  on  the  authority  of  Scripture,. 
which  uses  the  words  as  synonymous.  He  shows  this  by 
repeated  references  to  Scripture,  as  to  Titus  i.  5,  7 ; 
Philippians  i.  1,  and  Acts  xx.  17. 

^'Here  now,"  says  Calvin,  ''it  is  to  be  observed  that  we 
have  hitherto  enumerated  those  offices  only  which  consist 
in  the  ministry  of  the  word  ;  nor  does  Paul  make  mention 
of  any  others  in  the  passage  which  we  have  quoted  from, 
the  fourth  chapter  of  Ephesians  at  the  eleventh  verse. 
But  in  Romans  xii.  7,  and  1  Corinthians  xii.  28,  Paul 
enumerates  other  offices,  some  of  them  evidently  tem- 
porary. There  are  two,  however,  of  perpetual  duration. 
These  relate  to  government  and  care  of  the  poor.  By 
these  governors  I  understand  seniors  selected  from  the 
people  to  unite  with  the  bishops  in  pronouncing  censures 
and  exercising  discipline ;  for  this  is  the  only  meaning 
which  can  be  given  to  the  passage,  'He  tliat  ruleth  with 
diligence'  (Tiomans  xii.  8).  From  the  b(!ginning,  there- 
fore, each  cliurch  had  its  senate,  composed  of  pious,  grave 
and  venerable  men,  in  whom  was  lodged  the  power  of 
correcting  faults.  Of  this  ])o\vor  we  shall  afterwards 
speak.      Moreover,  experience  shows  tliat  this  arrange- 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  243 

meiit  was  not  confined  to  one  age,  and  therefore  we  are  to 
regard  the  office  of  government  as  necessary  for  all  ages." 

This  is  all  that  Calvin  says  about  the  ruling  elder  in 
this  chapter,  Avherein  he  sets  forth  church  government  as 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  That  the  office  is  of  divine 
right  he  has  sufficiently  declared  in  what  he  finds  stated 
about  governments  in  1  Corinthians  xii.  28.  He  has  also 
quoted  Acts  xiv.  23,  where  we  read  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas ordained  elders  in  every  church.  It  seems  strange 
that  he  has  not  quoted  1  Timothy  v.  17,  where  the  apostle 
divides  the  bishop  or  presbyter  or  elder  into  two  classes, 
one  that  rules  and  another  that  teaches  as  well  as  rules, 
the  latter  being  the  higher  class,  but  the  former  being,  no 
doubt,  the  aboriginal  class.  The  elders  at  Derbe,  Lystra 
and  Iconium  clearly  were  ruling  elders ;  they  can  hardly 
have  been  qualified  to  teach.  Had  Calvin  directed  his 
attention  to  1  Timothy  v.  17,  he  would  probably  have 
represented  somewhat  differently  both  the  pastor  and  the 
teacher. 

Calvin  next  describes  the  deacons  of  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ment church  as  of  two  classes,  being  so  set  forth,  he  says, 
in  Eomans  xii.  8,  "He  that  giveth"  is  the  deacon  who  ad- 
ministers alms,  and  "he  that  sheweth  mercy"  is  the  one 
that  waits  on  the  poor  and  the  sick.  Of  this  latter  kind 
were  the  widows  mentioned  in  1  Timothy  v.  10.  Such 
deacons  as  the  apostolic  church  had,  Calvin  says,  it  be- 
comes us  to  have,  which  would  give  us  the  office  of  dea- 
coness. 

Evidently  Calvin  understands  Acts  vi.  3  as  describing 
the  first  appearance  of  the  deacon's  office  in  the  Christian 
church ;  but  another  view  is  that  there  were  deacons  in 
the  Jewish  church,  and  transferred  thence  into  the  Chris- 
tian (Acts  V.  6,  10).  Acts  vi.  3  only  records  Hellenistic 
deacons  to  satisfy  the  complaints  that  had  arisen.  It  is 
significant  that  six  of  the  seven  had  Greek  names,  being 
ITellenistic  Jews,  while  the  seventh  was  a  proselyte  of 
Antioch. 

The  Calling  axd  Ordixatiox  of  Church  Officers. 

All  things  must  be  done  decently  and  in  order;  but 
nowhere,  as  respects  the  church,  is  this  more  important 


244  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

than  in  (loterminin<>;  the  nninnor  and  mo(k'  of  her  govern- 
ment. Lest  factions  and  tnrbnlent  men  shonld  rnsh  in, 
it  was  expressly  provided  that  every  church  officer  must 
assume  office  only  after  election  and  call  (Hebrews  v.  4; 
Jeremiah  xvii.  16).  First,  he  must  be  duly  called,  and 
then  he  must  volimtarily  accept  the  call  and  enter  on  its 
duties.  Thus  Pa\il  frequently  asserts  his  call  and  his 
fidelity  to  it.  If  so  great  a  minister  of  Christ  as  Paul 
needed  to  be  called,  how  much  more  all  ordinary  men. 

The  subject  of  the  call  Calvin  treats  under  four  heads, 
viz.,  who  are  to  be  appointed  ministers,  in  what  way,  by 
whom,  and  Math  what  ceremony.  He  treats  here  of  the 
external  call  by  the  church,  and  says  nothing-  of  the  secret 
call  of  God  which  is  so  necessary. 

What  persons  are  to  be  elected  bishops  Paul  tells  us  in 
1  Timothy  iii.  1-7  ;  Titus  i.  7-9.  The  substance  is,  such 
as  are  of  sound  doctrine  and  holy  life,  with  no  notorious 
defect  as  would  disgrace  the  ministry.  The  description 
of  elders  and  deacons  is  altogether  similar. 

In  what  way  are  they  to  be  elected  ?  Here  Calvin 
refers,  not  to  the  rite  of  choosing,  but,  as  the  business  is 
most  serious  and  important,  to  the  religious  forms  to  be 
observed  in  the  election.  Hence  the  faithful  observed 
prayer  and  fasting  when  they  elected  presbyters,  implor- 
ing from  God,  with  anxious  solicitude,  the  spirit  of  wis- 
dom and  discernment. 

By  whom  are  ministers  to  be  chosen  ?  The  apostles, 
being  extraordinary  officers,  were  appointed  by  our  Lord 
himself.  When  the  apostles  desired  to  replace  Judas, 
they  did  not  absolutely  choose,  but  only  named,  two  men, 
and  then  cast  lots,  thus  leaving  the  decision  to  the  Lord. 
Thus  Paul  claims  that  he  was  made  an  apostle,  not  by 
men,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father,  and  to 
prove  it  he  could  show  the  insignia  of  his  apostleship. 

"]3ut,"  continues  Calvin,  having  in  mind  the  fanatical 
Anabaptists,  "no  sober  person  will  deny  that  the  designa- 
tion of  ordinary  ministers  is  to  be  by  man,  as  numerous 
scriptures  teach.  Even  this  extraordinary  minister,  the 
Apostle  Paul,  is  subjected  to  the  discipline  of  an  ecclesi- 
astical call  thus,  'Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the 
work  whei'cunto  I  have  called  them'   (Acts  xiii.  2)  :  for 


CALVIN^S   IJSrSTITUTES.  245 

the  Lord  first  declares  that  he  has  appointed  Paul  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  yet  afterwards  requires  the  church  to 
set  him  apart.  The  same  thing  we  may  see  in  the  election 
of  Matthias.'' 

We  must  now  consider  whether  the  election  of  a  min- 
ister is  by  the  whole  church,  or  only  by  his  colleagues  and 
the  elders  who  preside  over  discipline,  or  whether  he  can 
be  constituted  by  the  authority  of  one  man.  Those  who 
say  by  one  man  (that  is,  a  diocesan  bishop  *)  allege 
Titus's  ordination  of  elders  in  every  city  and  Timothy's 
laying  hands  on  men.  But  neither  Titus  reigned  at  Crete 
nor  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  They  only  presided  in  elections 
by  the  peo]ile.  Roman  historians  often  tell  how  the  consul 
who  held  the  comitia  elected  the  new  magistrates  when  he 
only  received  the  suffrages  presiding  over  the  election  by 
the  peo]ile.  It  was  in  this  way  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
ordained  elders  in  every  church.  They  selected  two,  but 
the  whole  l^ody,  as  was  the  custom  of  Greeks  in  elections, 
declared  by  a  show  of  hands  which  of  the  two  they  wished 
to  have.  It  is  not  credible  that  Paul  conceded  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  more  than  he  assumed  to  himself.  We  must 
not  interpret  the  above  passages  so  as  to  infringe  upon 
the  common  right  and  liberty  of  the  church.  Cyprian  is 
here  quoted  by  Calvin  to  sustain  this  view.  Indeed,  we 
see  that,  by  command  of  the  Lord,  the  Levitical  priest 
must  be  brought  in  view  of  tlie  people  before  consecration. 
'Nor  was  Matthias  enrolled  among  the  apostles,  nor  the 
seven  deacons  elected  in  any  other  way  except  at  the  sight 
and  aiiproval  of  the  people.  Other  pastors,  however, 
ought  to  preside  over  the  election,  lest  any  error  should  be 
committed  by  the  general  body,  either  through  levity  or 
bad  passion  or  tumult.  Calvin  is  strong  against  the  one- 
man-power  of  rule. 

It  remains  to  be  considered  with  what  ceremony  min- 
isters are  to  be  appointed.  It  is  simply  with  the  laying 
on  of  hands.  Thus  the  Jews  devoted  anything.  Thus 
Jacob,  when  he  blessed  the  two  sons  of  Joseph.  Thus  our 
Lord,  when  he  blessed  infants.  Thus  the  Jews  laid  hands 
on  their  sacrifices.     This  simple  rite  signified  that  the 

*See  Chap.  IV.,  Sees.  10,  11 ;  Chap.  V.,  Sees.  2,  3;  also,  Calvin 
on  Acts  vi.  3;  and  Luther,  torn.  II.,  p.  374. 


246  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

apostles  devoted  to  the  Lord  him  whom  they  admitted  to 
the  ministry.  They  observed  the  same  ceremony  in  con- 
ferring the  visible  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  no  fixed 
precept  for  us  to  lay  on  hands;  we  only  follow  the  ex- 
ample of  the  apostles.  It  is  certainly  useful  by  such  a 
symbol  to  commend  to  the  people  the  dignity  of  the  min- 
istry ;  and  let  him  who  is  ordained  with  such  a  ceremony 
always  remember  that  he  is  not  his  own,  but  devoted  to 
the  special  service  of  the  Lord.  This  ceremony  of  the 
Lord's  own  appointment  cannot  be  a  vain  thing. 

The  fourth  chapter  treats  of  the  primitive  church  and 
church  government  before  the  papacy.  First,  it  describes 
government  in  the  primitive  church.  Sec.  1-10.  Xext, 
the  formal  ordination  of  bishoi:>s  and  ministers,  Sec. 
10-15. 

Government  in  the  Primitive  Church. 

Calvin  will  be  found  very  charitable  to  the  course  of 
things  in  the  primitive  church,  whose  canons,  he  says, 
contain  almost  nothing  that  was  foreign  to  the  sacred 
scriptures.  His  object  being  to  draw  a  very  strong  con- 
trast between  that  church  and  the  church  of  the  jDapacy,  he 
apologizes,  as  far  as  he  can  with  a  good  conscience,  for 
every  early  departure  from  the  ways  of  the  apostolic 
church.  We  should  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  these  early 
departures,  which  he  called  slight,  which  led  the  way  to 
the  more  dreadful  errors  of  the  Romish  church.  He  says 
they  were  sincerely  desirous  to  do  right,  and  they  did  not 
go  much  astray.  For,  he  says,  as  we  have  shown  that  in 
scripture  there  are  three  kinds  of  ministers  (triplices  min- 
istros),  so  the  early  church  distinguished  all  the  ministry 
she  had  into  three  orders ;  for  from  the  order  of  the 
presbyters  a  part  w^ere  chosen  to  be  pastors  and  doctors, 
and  to  the  other  part  was  committed  the  censure  of  morals 
and  discipline.  To  the  deacons  belonged  the  care  of  the 
poor  and  the  dispensing  of  alms.  "Readers  and  Acolytes" 
did  not  signify  distinct  offices,  but  were  only  persons  in 
training  for  the  service  of  the  church. 

All,  therefore,  to  -whom  the  office  of  teaching  was  com- 
mitted they  called  presbyters ;  and  in  each  city  these 
presbyters  elected  one  to  whom   they  ga\-c  the  title  of 


Calvin's  institutes.  247 

bishop.  The  bishop,  however,  was  not  so  superior  in 
honor  and  dignitv  as  to  have  dominion  over  his  colleagues, 
but  only  to  be  like  a  president  in  an  assembly,  to  bring 
matters  before  them,  collect  the  opinions  and  preside. 
And  the  ancients  themselves  confess  that  this  practice  was 
introduced  by  human  arrangement,  according  to  the  exi- 
gency of  the  times.  Thus  Jerome,  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
Chapter  L,  says,  ^'A  bishop  is  the  same  as  a  presbyter; 
and  before  dissensions  were  introduced  into  religion  by 
the  instigation  of  the  devil,  and  it  was  said  among  the 
people,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Cephas,  churches  were 
governed  by  a  connnon  council  of  presbyters.  After- 
wards, that  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  plucked  up, 
the  whole  charge  was  devolved  upon  one.  Therefore,  as 
presbyters  know  that,  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  they 
are  subject  to  him  who  presides,  so  let  bishops  know  that 
they  are  greater  than  presbyters  more  by  custom  than 
in  consequence  of  our  Lord's  appointment,  and  that  these 
must  rule  the  church  together."  * 

We  see  evidently  that  what  the  author  has  especially  in 
mind,  as  he  describes  the  primitive  church,  is  to  show 
how  it  differed  from  the  papal  system,  which  began  so 
early  to  be  developed,  even  as  Paul  says,  the  mystery  of 
iniquity  was  already  working.  Accordingly,  we  find  Cal- 
vin saying  at  the  beginning  of  Section  II.,  "that  all  those 
to  whom  the  office  of  teaching  was  committed  they  called 
presbyters."  We  know  that  they  also  called  by  that  name 
all  to  whom  was  committed  "the  censure  of  manners  and 
discipline,"  that  is,  all  the  ruling  elders.  For  so  Paul 
says  in  1  Timothy  v.  17,  and  so  Calvin  himself  says  in  the 
first  section  of  this  chapter.  There  were  others,  then, 
wdiom  they  called  presbyters,  besides  those  to  whom  the 
office  of  teaching  was  committed.  The  reformer  does  not 
stop  to  make  this  plain,  but  what  he  has  in  mind  is  simply 
to  show  that  presbyters  from  the  beginning  were  not 
inferior  to  bishops ;  for  in  fact  "presbyter"  and  "bishop" 
in  the  scripture  are  interchangeable  terms. 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  in  the  form  of  expression 
used  by  Calvin  in  this  case  he  means  to  intimate  that,  in 
the    primitive    church,   through    the    ambition    of    the 

*  The  Latin  says,  "Et  in  commune  debere  ecclesiam  regere." 


248  MY  T>IFE  AND  TIMES. 

teachers,  the  name  presbyter  was  soon  confined  to  them, 
and  the  ruling  elder  early  disappears,  till  in  the  sixteenth 
century  he  is  exhumed  by  Calvin. 

Calvin  proceeds  to  say  that  in  another  place  Jerome 
shows  how  ancient  the  custom  was  of  the  presbyters  ap- 
pointing one  of  themselves  to  be  bishop.  Jerome  says 
that  "at  Alexandria,  from  the  time  of  Mark  the  evangelist 
as  far  down  as  llcraclas  and  Dionysius"  (middle  of  the 
third  century)  presbyters  thus  made  the  bishop  to  bo  of  a 
higher  rank  than  themselves. 

The  reader  will  observe  in  what  Jerome  says,  how  soon 
the  episcopate  is  developed  over  the  presbyterate.  It  has 
already  come  to  be  a  higher  rank. 

Calvin  continues,  "Each  city,  therefore,  had  a  college  of 
presbyters,  consisting  of  pastors  and  teachers.  For  they 
all  performed  for  the  people  that  office  of  teaching,  exhort- 
ing and  correcting,  which  Paul  enjoins  on  bishops  (Titus 
i.  9)  ;  and  that  they  might  leave  a  seed  behind  them,  they 
made  it  their  business  to  train  younger  men  who  had 
devoted  themselves  to  the  sacred  warfare.  Each  presby- 
tery {collcfjia  politiae),  as  I  have  said,  merely  to  preserve 
order  and  peace,  was  under  one  bishop,  who,  though  he 
excelled  others  in  dignity,  was  subject  to  the  meeting  of 
the  brethren.  But  if  the  district  which  was  under  his 
bishopric  was  too  large  for  him  to  be  able  to  discharge  all 
the  duties  of  bishop,  presbyters  were  distributed  over  it 
in  certain  places,  to  act  as  his  substitutes  in  minor  mat- 
ters.    These  were  called  chorepiscopi — rural  bishops." 

Calvin  proceeds  to  say  that  the  bishop,  as  well  as  pres- 
byters, was  in  the  primitive  church  required  to  administer 
the  word  and  sacraments.  Here  evidently  the  reformer 
is  striking  at  the  Roman  bishops,  whose  oflfice  was  not 
preaching,  but  administering  the  affairs  of  a  whole  dis- 
trict. It  soon  became  necessary,  as  we  have  seen,  to  have 
rural  bishops  appointed  to  assist  him,  for  he  has  quit  the 
word  and  sacraments  and  become  just  an  exaggerated 
ruling  elder. 

Calvin  continues,  "Only  at  Alexaiulria,  where  Arius 
had  troubled  the  church,  was  it  enacte<l  that  no  presbyter 
should  address  the  people ;  and  Jerome  does  not  conceal 
his  dissatisfaction  with   this  merclv  local   arrauircmcnt. 


Calvin's  institutes.  249 

In  all  other  portions  of  the  church  it  certainly  would  have 
been  deemed  monstrous  for  a  bishop  not  to  preach.  Such 
was  the  strictness  of  primitive  times.  ISTot  even  in  the 
time  of  Gregory,  when  the  church  had  almost  fallen, 
would  any  bishop  have  been  tolerated  w^ho  did  not  preach. 
Gregory  says  in  his  twenty-fourth  epistle,  the  priest  dies 
who  does  not  preach.  Elsewhere  Gregory  says,  when 
Paul  testifies  his  freedom  from  the  blood  of  all  men,  he 
teaches  that  we  who  are  called  priests  are  murderers  of 
souls  if  we  see  men  perishing  and  do  not  warn  them.  If 
Gregory  does  not  spare  those  who  did  their  duty  par- 
tially, as  did  the  bishops  of  his  time,  what  think  you 
would  he  say  to  those  who  neglect  it  entirely,  as  Calvin 
meant  to  say  was  the  case  with  the  bishops  of  his  time  ? 
For  a  long  time  (says  Calvin)  it  was  held  in  the  primitive 
church  to  be  the  first  duty  of  a  bishop  to  feed  the  people 
with  the  word  of  God. 

The  Gregory  above  referred  to  was  Gregory  the  Great, 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth  century,  the  man  who  sent 
missionaries  to  Britain  to  convert  the  Anglo-Saxons. 

Calvin  continues,  ''As  to  the  fact  that  each  province 
had  an  archbishop  among  the  bishops,  and  that  by  the 
Council  of  ISTice  patriarchs  were  made  superior  to  arch- 
bishops, it  must  be  allowed  that  the  design  was  for  the 
preservation  of  discipline."  It  must  also  be  allowed,  in 
treating  of  the  subject  here,  that  this  practice  was  rare. 
The  chief  reason  for  the  institution  of  these  orders  w^as 
that,  when  a  matter  could  not  be  settled  except  by  being 
referred  to  a  provincial  synod,  if  the  magnitude  of  the 
question  required  it,  patriarchs  might  be  employed  along 
with  the  synods  to  determine  it,  and  from  them  there 
could  be  no  appeal  except  to  a  general  council.  Some 
called  this  hierarchy — in  my  opinion  a  name  not  proper, 
certainly  not  found  in  scripture;  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
never  designed  that  any  one  should  dream  of  domination 
in  the  church ;  but,  looking  not  at  the  term,  but  only  at 
the  thing,  we  must  see  that  the  ancient  bishops  had  no 
wish  to  frame  a  church  government  different  from  what 
the  word  of  God  prescribes. 

Let  the  reader  observe  the  characteristic  sobriety  and 
charitableness  of  the  reformer. 


250  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

As  to  deacons,  their  office  was  as  it  had  been  under  the 
apostles.  For  they  received  the  annual  revenues  of  the 
church  and  applied  them  to  their  true  uses  ;  that  is,  partly 
to  maintain  ministers  and  partly  to  help  the  poor,  under 
the  direction  of  the  bishop,  to  whom  they  made  annual 
reports.  The  canons  made  this  the  duty  of  the  bishop,  but 
he  performed  this  duty  by  the  deacons  who  were  under 
his  direction.  But  the  Council  of  Antioch  ordained  that 
the  bishop  who  meddled  with  the  effects  of  the  church 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons 
should  be  restrained.  From  many  of  the  letters  of  Greg- 
ory it  is  evident  that,  even  at  that  time,  while  otherwise 
ecclesiastical  administrations  were  very  irregularly  dis- 
charged (ecdesiasticae  ordinationes  multum  vitiatae 
erant),  it  was  still  the  practice  for  the  deacons  to  l>e, 
under  the  bishops,  the  stewards  of  the  poor.  Probably  at 
first  subdeacons  assisted  the  deacons  in  the  management 
of  the  poor.  Archdeacons  were  afterwards  appointed  as 
the  extent  of  the  revenues  increased ;  and  Jerome  says 
they  already  existed  in  his  day.  Then  these  took  cliarge 
of  the  revenues,  possessions  and  furniture,  and  daily  of- 
ferings. We  find  Gregory  saying  to  the  Archdeacon  Soli- 
tanus  that  the  blame  would  be  his  if  any  of  the  goods  of 
the  church  perished.  Then  the  reading  of  the  word  to  the 
people,  and  the  giving  of  exhortation,  was  allowed  them, 
and  afterwards  the  giving  of  the  cup  in  the  sacred  supper. 
This  was  done  to  make  them  respect  their  office,  as  being 
not  a  secular  stewardship,  but  a  spiritual  function,  dedi- 
cated to  God. 

Hence  we  may  judge  what  kind  of  distribution  was 
made  of  ecclesiastical  goods.  You  will  learn,  both  from 
the  decrees  of  synods  and  from  other  ancient  writers,  that 
all  the  possessions  of  the  church  were  held  to  be  the  patri- 
mony of  the  poor.  Accordingly,  it  is  ever  and  anon 
sounded  in  the  ears  of  bishops  and  of  deacons :  Remember 
that  you  are  not  handling  your  own,  but  what  belongs  to 
the  poor ;  if  you  dishonestly  conceal  or  dilapidate  it,  you 
will  be  guilty  of  blood .  ITence  they  are  to  distribute  with 
the  greatest  care,  as  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  without  re- 
spect of  persons.  Hence,  also,  by  Chrysostom,  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  and  other  like  bishops,  those  graver  obtesta- 


Calvin's  institutes.  251 

tions  in  which  they  assert  their  integrity  before  the  peo- 
ple. But  since  it  is  just  in  itself,  and  also  sanctioned  by 
the  Lord,  that  they  that  preach  the  gospel  should  live  of  the 
gospel,  and  since  some  presbyters  in  that  age  had  become 
poor  by  consecrating  all  they  had  to  God,  aliment  was 
afforded  to  the  ministry,  and  yet  the  poor  not  neglected. 
Yet  it  was  provided  that  the  ministers  were  to  live  fru- 
gally and  not  in  luxury.  "For,"  says  Jerome,  ''those 
clerics  who  have  a  sufficient  patrimony  commit  sacrilege 
if  they  accept  what  belongs  to  the  poor." 

But  when  at  length,  through  cupidity  and  the  depraved 
desires  of  some,  bad  examples  had  arisen,  they  had  to 
frame  canons  correcting  these  evils,  dividing  the  revenues 
of  the  church  into  four  parts.  They  assigned  one  part  to 
the  clergy,  a  second  to  the  poor,  a  third  to  the  repair  of 
churches  and  other  edifices,  and  a  fourth  to  the  poor 
strangers ;  for  although  other  canons  attribute  this  last 
part  to  the  bishop,  it  is  not  meant  to  be  for  his  own  use,  but 
to  enable  him  to  use  the  hospitality  which  Paul  enjoins. 
So  is  this  canon  interpreted  by  Gelasius  and  by  Gregory. 
Gregory  especially  so  explains  it. 

Moreover,  what  was  spent  in  the  adorning  of  sacred 
things  {in  ornatum  sacrorum)  was  at  first  very  trifling; 
and  even  when  the  church  had  become  somewhat  more 
wealthy,  all  the  money  that  was  collected  in  such  things 
(illic)  was  reserved  for  the  poor  when  some  great  neces- 
sity should  arise.  Evidently  Calvin  here  refers  to  silver 
and  gold  vessels,  etc.  He  thus  continues,  "Cyril,  when  a 
famine  prevailed  in  the  province  of  Jerusalem,  and  the 
want  could  not  otherwise  be  supplied,  took  the  vessels  and 
robes  and  sold  them  for  the  support  of  the  poor  Acacius, 
Bishop  of  Amida,  when  famine  was  destroying  the  Per- 
sians, assembled  the  clergy  and  delivered  this  noble  ad- 
dress, 'Our  God  has  no  need  of  chalices  or  salvers,  for  he 
neitlier  eats  nor  drinks.'  Then  he  melts  down  the  plate, 
and  gave  food  and  ransom,  to  the  sufferers.  Jerome  also 
tells  how  Exuperius,  Bishop  of  Tholouse,  though  he  car- 
ried the  body  of  the  Lord  in  a  wicker  basket  and  his 
blood  in  a  glass,  suffered  no  poor  man  to  be  hungry.  What 
I  said  of  Acacius,  Ambrose  tells  of  himself.  When  the 
Arians  assailed  Ambrose  for  breakins;  down  the  sacred 


252  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

vessels  for  the  ransom  of  captives,  he  demonstrated  to 
them  at  great  length  how  the  sacraments  stand  in  no  need 
of  gold,  and  their  true  honor  is  in  the  ransom  of  captives. 
In  a  word,  we  see  the  exact  truth  of  what  he  elsewhere 
says,  viz.,  that  whatever  the  church  then  possessed  was  the 
revenue  of  the  needy,  and  that  a  bishop  has  nothing  but 
Avhat  belongs  to  the  poor. 

We  have  thus  reviewed  all  the  ecclesiastical  offices  of 
the  primitive  church.  The  others  spoken  of  by  ecclesias- 
tical writers  were  just  preparations  for  office.  Those 
good  men  thought  it  wise  to  have  in  training  young  per- 
sons who  should  succeed  them,  having  dedicated  them- 
selves, with  the  consent  and  authority  of  their  parents,  to 
this  life.  Their  general  name  was  that  of  clerks,  I  could 
wish  that  some  more  appropriate  name  had  been  given 
them,  for  this  appellation  had  its  origin  in  error,  or  at 
least  improper  feeling.  Here  the  reformer  seems  to  pass 
condemnation  by  inference  upon  the  names  clergy  and 
clergymen,  terms  wdiich  certainly  never  should  be  used 
by  thoughtful  protestants.  ''The  whole  church,"  says 
Calvin, ''is  called  by  Peter  (1  Peter  v.  3)  the  Lord's  clerus, 
that  is,  his  inheritance  and  portion,  which  name  should 
not  be  given  to  any  class  of  church  officers.  But  the  in- 
stitution itself  was  most  sacred,  and  valuable  as  a  means 
of  training  up  young  ministers.  First  of  all,  they  en- 
trusted them  with  the  opening  and  shutting  of  the  church 
doors,  and  so  were  called  Ostiarii.  Kext  came  the  Aco- 
lytes, who  were  followers  of  the  bishop,  always  attending 
him  wherever  he  w^ent,  that  there  might  arise  no  suspicion, 
since  a  witness  was  always  present.  Then  there  were 
'readers,'  Avho  were  to  stand  up  and  read  the  word  to  the 
people  among  whom  they  were  to  know  and  be  known,  and 
learn  not  to  be  ashamed  when  afterwards  they  were  ad- 
mitted to  be  subdeacons." 

Ordination  of  Bishops  and  Ministers. 

As  to  the  first  two  points,  viz.,  the  persons  to  be  elected, 
and  the  manner  of  their  election,  the  early  church  fol- 
lowed the  apostles,  meeting  solemnly  for  the  election, 
with  earnest  prayer  to  God,  with  examination  into  the 
life  and  doctrine  of  the  candidates,  only  sometimes  they 


CAT.VIN^S   INSTITUTES.  253 

were  more  strict  than  Paul  (1  Timothy  iii.  2-8),  and 
especially,  in  process  of  time,  they  exacted  celibacy.  As 
to  the  third  point,  viz.,  who  should  appoint  the  minister? 
they  departed  from  the  apostolic  rule,  for  anciently  none 
were  admitted  without  the  consent  of  the  whole  people. 
Hence  Cyprian  apologizes  for  having  appointed  a  reader 
without  consultino-  the  whole  church,  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  to  have  a  long  probation,  and  only  to  an  unimpor- 
tant office.  Afterwards,  in  other  orders  also,  except  the 
episcopate,  the  people  left  the  choice  to  the  bishop  and  the 
presbyters,  unless  where  new  presbyters  were  appointed 
to  parishes,  in  which  case  the  express  consent  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  place  behooved  to  be  given.  ]^or  is  it 
strange  that  the  people  should  be  indifferent  to  their  own 
rights  as  to  sub-deacons,  for  only  after  a  long  probation 
could  he  become  deacon,  and  then,  after  another  long  pro- 
bation, presbji;er ;  for  none  were  promoted  who  had  not 
for  many  years  been  constantly  under  the  eye  of  the  peo- 
ple. There  were  also  many  canons  for  punishing  their 
faults,  so  that  the  church  need  not  be  burdened  with  bad 
presbyters  or  deacons.  Indeed,  in  the  case  of  presbyters, 
the  consent  of  the  citizens  was  always  required,  as  is  at- 
tested by  the  canon  ascribed  to  Anacletus.  Moreover, 
all  ordinations  were  at  stated  periods  of  the  year,  so  that 
none  might  creep  in  stealthily. 

As  to  bishops,  the  people  long  retained  their  right  to 
prevent  any  one  being  intruded  on  them.  So  the  Council 
of  Antioch  ordained.  Leo  I.  also  carefully  confirmed 
this.  Hence  various  passages  like  this,  ''Let  him  be 
elected  whom  the  clergy  and  the  people,  at  least  the  ma- 
jority, demand."  Very  careful  were  the  holy  fathers  that 
this  liberty  of  the  people  should  be  preserved,  as  appears 
in  the  case  of  Nectar ius,  whom  a  general  council  at  Con- 
stantinople would  not  ordain  without  the  approbation 
of  the  whole  clergy  and  people,  as  is  testified  by  their 
letter  to  the  Roman  Synod.  So,  when  a  bishop  would 
name  his  own  successor,  he  must  get  the  consent  of  the 
whole  people.  Augustine  not  only  gives  an  example  of 
this,  but  the  very  form,  in  the  nomination  of  Eradius. 
Theodoret,  after  relating  that  Peter,  who  was  appointed 
by  Athanasius  his  successor,  had  the  acclamation  of  the 


254  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

whole  people,  also  adds  that  the  sacerdotal  order  rati- 
fied it. 

Indeed,  it  was  decreed  bv  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  and 
I  admit  on  the  best  grounds,  that  ordination  should  not 
be  left  to  the  crowd ;  for  it  seldom  happens  that  many 
heads  can  settle  a  matter  well.  It  generally  holds  true, 
"Incertum  scindi  stiidia  in  contraria  vulgus" — opposing 
wishes  rend  the  fickle  crowd.  Accordingly,  first,  the 
clergy  alone  selected,  then  presented  the  man  to  the  mag- 
istrate, or  senate,  or  chief  men.  These,  after  deliberation, 
put  their  signature  to  the  election  if  approved ;  otherwise 
they  chose  another.  The  matter  was  then  laid  before  the 
multitude,  who,  though  not  bound  l)y  all  this,  were  less 
able  to  act  tumultuously.  Or,  if  the  matter  began  with 
the  multitude,  the  wishes  of  the  people  having  been  thus 
heard,  the  clergy  at  length  elected.  Leo  said,  "The  wishes 
of  the  citizens,  the  testimonies  of  the  people,  the  choice 
of  the  honorable,  the  election  of  the  clergy,  are  to  be 
waited  for."  Thus,  all  that  the  Council  of  Laodicea  de- 
signed was  that  the  clergy  and  rulers  were  not  to  allow 
themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  the  rash  multitude,  but 
rather,  by  their  prudence  and  gravity,  to  repress,  if  need- 
ful, their  foolish  desires. 

This  mode  of  election  was  still  in  force  in  the  time  of 
Gregory  (A.  D.  590).  Whenever  a  new  bishop  was  to  be 
elected,  he  would  consult  the  clergy,  the  magistrates  and 
the  people,  and  also  the  governor.  When  one  Constantius 
was  made  bishop  of  Milan,  but,  because  of  the  insurgence 
of  the  barbarians  of  the  north,  many  Milanese  had  fled  to 
Genoa,  Gregory  held  that  the  election  was  not  lawful 
until  these  refugees  were  called  together  and  gave  their 
consent.  "Indeed,"  says  Calvin,  *'not  five  hundred  years 
ago.  Pope  Xicholas  fixed  the  election  of  a  pontiff  thus: 
first,  the  cardinals  must  precede ;  then  the  clergy,  and 
then  the  people  of  Rome."  And  then  he  recites  the  de- 
cree of  Leo,  lately  quoted  by  me.  But  if  the  election  was 
to  be  out  of  the  city,  his  order  was  that  some  of  the  people 
must  go  and  ratify.  The  suffrage  of  the  emperor,  as  far 
as  I  can  understand,  was  required  only  at  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople, being  seats  of  empire.  In  Gratian's  De- 
cretals we  read  that  canonical  elections   are  not  to  be 


Calvin's  institutes.  255 

vacated  at  the  word  of  a  king.  Still,  it  is  one  thing  to  de- 
prive the  church  of  her  right  of  deciding  an  election,  and 
quite  another  thing  to  assign  due  honor  to  a  king  or  em- 
peror. We  see  how  far  Calvin's  conservatism  carries 
him. 

"It  remains  now,"  he  says,  ''to  speak  of  the  ceremony 
of  ordination  or  consecration  in  the  ancient  church.  The 
Latins  called  it  by  those  names,  but  the  Greeks  give  it 
two  names,  the  one  signifying  the  lifting  up  of  hands  in 
voting,  the  other  the  laying  on  of  hands  upon  the  head. 
A  decree  of  the  Council  of  l>lice  (in  the  fourth  century) 
requires  the  metropolitans  and  all  the  bishops  of  the  prov- 
ince to  be  present ;  but  if  some  were  necessarily  hin- 
dered, at  least  three  must  attend,  and  the  absent  must 
signify  assent  by  letter.  But  strict  examination  into  doc- 
trine and  life  must  precede  ordination.  It  appears  from 
Cyprian's  words  that  of  old  the  ordination  took  place  at 
the  same  time  as  the  election,  so  that  the  presence  of 
bishops  might  prevent  any  disorder  by  the  crowd  in  the 
matter  of  their  election." 

Yet  a  diiferent  custom  gradually  gained  ground ;  for 
the  elected  began  to  go  to  the  metropolitan,  to  get  ordina- 
tion by  him.  Gradually  a  still  worse  custom  prevailed, 
owing  to  the  increased  authority  of  the  Romish  See, 
which  was  for  all  the  bishops  of  Italy  to  go  to  Rome  for 
ordination.  Thus  only  a  few  cities  maintained  their  an- 
cient rights,  for  example,  Milan. 

The  only  form  used  was  the  laying  on  of  hands.  I  do 
not  read  of  any  other  ceremony,  except  that  the  bishop 
wore  some  dress  to  distinguish  him  from  the  other  pres- 
bvters.  Presbyters  and  deacons  also  received  laying  on  of 
hands,  but  each  bishop,  with  his  college  of  presbyters,  or- 
dained his  o^^^l  presbyters.  The  same  act  was  performed 
by  all,  but  because  the  bishop  presided,  it  came  at  last  to 
be  called  his  ordination.  Here,  then,  is  still  to  be  seen,  in 
this  description  by  Calvin,  the  remains  of  the  original 
ordination  of  ruling  elders  by  the  pastor  and  the  other 
elders,  and  how  gradually  prelacy  came  to  take  the  place 
of  scriptural  presbytery. 

The  eighth  chapter  introduces  the  third  part  of  Cal- 
vin's subject,  viz..  Church  Power,  as  existing  either  in 


256  ISIY  LIP^E  AND  TIMES. 

individual  l)ishops,  or  in  councils,  whether  provincial  or 
general.  Nothing  is  said  here  about  particular  councils, 
such  as  church  sessions  or  presbyteries,  but  he  will  speak 
of  them  in  the  next  chapter,  and  show  that  thej  have  the 
very  same  kind  of  authority  as  the  higher  courts  of  the 
church,  or  even  as  to  what  he  means  by  the  general  coun- 
cil. He  says,  "I  speak  of  spiritual  power,  such  as  belongs 
properly  to  the  church,  and  which  consists  either  in  doc- 
trine, or  in  jurisdiction,  or  in  enacting  laws.  As  to  the 
subject  of  doctrine  there  are  two  divisions,  viz.,  the 
authority  of  delivering  dogmas  and  of  interpreting 
them.'' 

Calvin  thus,  at  the  very  outset  of  this  chapter  on  power, 
makes  the  distinction  between  several  power  and  joint 
power;  for  church  power  in  one  form  belongs  to  indi- 
vidual ministers  and  elders,  but  another  form  of  it  is  con- 
fined to  assemblies  of  church  rulers.  He  pauses  here  to 
remind  the  reader  that  church  power,  whatever  we  may 
say  about  it,  must  always  be  exercised  for  edification  and 
not  for  destruction.  To  use  it  lawfully  we  must  remem- 
ber that  we  are  only  servants  of  Christ,  and  also  servants 
of  his  people.  ISTow,  the  only  way  to  edify  the  church  is 
to  magnify  Christ,  and  always  hold  him  up  as  its  only 
Lord ;  for  not  of  any  other,  but  only  of  Christ,  was  it 
said,  "Hear  him."  Ecclesiastical  power  is  not,  then,  to 
be  malignantly  *  adorned  (maligtie  ornanda),  but  is  to 
be  confined  within  certain  limits,  as  described  by  prophets 
and  apostles,  so  as  not  to  be  drawn  hither  and  thither  at 
the  caprice  of  men ;  for,  conceding  to  men  all  the  power 
they  would  like  to  assume,  it  is  easy  to  see  it  must  soon  de- 
generate into  tyranny. 

Thus  Calvin  here  enunciates  several  principles  which 
are  very  dear  to  all  Presbyterians.  The  first  is,  that 
church  power  is  all  spiritual.  Secular  things,  j)olitical 
matters,  and  scientific  questions,  arc  all  beyond  its  sphere. 
Another  is,  it  is  never  for  destruction,  but  always  only  for 
edification.  It  acts  always  in  love  and  for  good  to  the 
oifender.  It  inflicts  no  pains  or  penalties  except  such  as 
are  spiritual.     A  third  one  is,  it  is  never  magisterial,  but 

*  I  so  translate  this  word  on  the  authority  of  Facciolati. 


CALVIN  S   INSTITUTES. 


257 


only  spiritual,  and  by  the  authority  and  for  the  honor  of 
Christ. 

When  Calvin  divides  the  power  of  doctrine  into  de- 
livery of  dogmas  and  the  interpretation  of  them,  he  sets 
forth  by  the  first  what  individual  bishops  may  do,  as  well 
as  councils ;  and  when  he  speaks  of  interpreting  dogmas, 
I  think  he  has  in  view  especially  the  duty  of  applying  the 
principles  of  truth  to  various  questions  that  come  before 
•courts  of  the  church. 

In  like  manner,  Gillespie  distinguishes  between  the 
power  of  order  and  of  jurisdiction.  The  first  is  what  an 
individual  ofiicer  may  do  by  himself,  the  second,  what  he 
■can  only  do  when  joined  with  similar  officers.  The  power 
of  doctrine  is  administered  severally  when  ruling  bishops 
teach  privately  and  from  house  to  house.  The  teaching 
bishop  administers  it  both  privately  and  publicly.  Thus 
both  classes  of  elders  have  this  several  power  of  doctrine. 
Gillespie  calls  this  their  power  of  order.  But  power  of 
jurisdiction,  and  also  of  legislation,  belong  only  to  the 
courts  of  the  church,  and  these  are  their  joint  power.  We 
recognize  no  one-man  power  of  making  law  or  of  applying 
power  in  jurisdiction.  (See  Chapter  XL,  Section  vi.) 

Coming  now  to  the  authority  of  individual  bishops,  or 
presbyters,  to  deliver  dogmas,  Calvin  says  this  authority 
is  not  given  to  themselves,  but  to  their  office.  As  usual,  he 
is  in  this  chapter  continually  contrasting  scriptural  in- 
stitutions and  officers  with  those  of  the  Romish  church. 

He  says,  "The  authority  and  dignity  of  church  officers, 
whether  priests,  or  prophets,  or  apostles,  or  successors  of 
apostles,  is  not  given  to  themselves,  but  to  their  office ;  or, 
to  speak  more  plainly,  it  is  given  to  the  word,  for  they 
<;an  only  teach  or  give  interpretations  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  Before  he  brings  them  forward  to  speak  to  the 
people  he  always  instructs  them  what  to  speak,  lest  they 
should  speak  anything  but  his  own  word.  This  is  shown 
in  the  case  of  Moses  and  the  Levitical  priests.  Accord- 
ingly, when  the  people  embraced  Moses'  doctrine,  they 
are  said  to  have  believed  the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses. 
The  priests,  too,  who  under  the  severest  sanctions  were 
not  to  be  despised,  are  said  to  be  only  messengers  of  the 
Lord.     It  is  said  he  made  his  covenant  with  Levi,  that 


258  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  law  of  truth  might  be  in  his  mouth ;  also  that  the 
priests'  lips  should  keep  knowledge.  Therefore,  if  the 
priest  would  be  heard,  let  him  faithfully  deliver  the  com- 
mands which  he  has  received  from  his  Maker."  (Exodus 
iii.  4;  Deut.  xvii.  9;  Exodus  xiv.  []1;  Malachi  ii.  4,  6; 
Deut.  xvii.  11.) 

The  same  thing  is  true  as  to  the  prophets.  Ezekiel  is 
elegantly  described  as  a  watchman  who  is  to  hear  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  and  give  warning  (Ezekiel  iii.  IT). 
In  Jeremiah  we  read,  ''The  jirophet  that  hath  a  dream, 
let  him  tell  a  dream ;  and  he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him 
speak  my  word  faithfully"  (Jeremiah  xxiii.  28).  Surely 
this  is  the  law  to  all.  I^one  is  to  speak  except  what  he 
has  heard  from  the  Lord ;  everji:hing  else  is  called 
"chaff,"  while  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  wheat.  The 
prophets  continually  speak  of  "the  word  of  the  Lord," 
"the  burden  of  the  Lord."  Isaiah  (vi.  5)  says  his  lips 
are  unclean,  and  Jeremiah  (i.  0)  calls  himself  a  child,  as 
long  as  they  are  speaking  their  own  language,  but  as  soon 
as  they  became  the  organs  of  the  Spirit  their  lips  were 
holy  and  their  words  pure.  After  strict  charges  given  not 
to  speak  except  at  his  mouth,  there  are  conferred  upon 
them  great  powers  and  illustrious  titles.  They  are  set 
over  nations  to  pull  down  and  to  build  up  (Jeremiah  i. 
9,  10).  _ 

To  the  apostles  are  given  distinguished  titles,  "Light," 
"Salt,"  "Binders  and  Loosers" ;  but  they  tell  ns  their 
sole  power  is  to  speak  his  commands  faithfully.  But, 
besides  Moses  and  the  priests,  and  the  prophets  and  the 
apostles,  he  that  is  above  all  gives  us  an  example,  by  con- 
descending to  take  on  him  the  same  rule.  "My  doctrine 
is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me."  The  power  of  the 
church,  therefore,  is  limited  to  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

But  although  the  word  is  our  only  rule,  and  Christ  our 
only  Teacher,  yet  the  methods  of  teaching  and  learning, 
from  the  beginning  down  to  our  times,  have  been  various. 
Onr  Saviour  says,  '"'No  man  knoweth  the  Father  but  he  ta 
whom  the  Son  will  reveal  him;"  all,  therefore,  from  the 
beginning,  who  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  God  were 
taught  by  the  Son  himself.  From  this  fountain  Adam, 
!Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  drew  all  the  heavenly 


CALVIN''s   INSTITUTES.  259 

doctrine  wliicli  they  possessed.  From  the  same  drew  all 
the  prophets  all  their  heavenly  oracles.  But  the  mode 
was  different ;  for  to  the  patriarchs  he  gave  secret  revela- 
tions, accompanied,  however,  with  such  signs  or  miracles 
as  convinced  them  it  was  God  who  spoke.  These  revela- 
tions they  handed  down  to  posterity,  who,  by  the  inward 
teaching'of  God's  Spirit,  knew  that  the  doctrine  was  of 
heaven  and  not  of  earth. 

Afterwards  God  gives  to  his  church  a  more  illustrious 
form,  by  bestowing  on  her  his  written  word;  then  this 
becomes  what  the  priests  must  teach  the  people  (Malachi 
ii.  7).  This  was  the  law,  and  nothing  to  be  added  to  it  or 
taken  from  it.  'Next  come  the  prophets,  speaking  new 
oracles  from  God,  flowing  nevertheless  out  of  the  law,  and 
having  constant  respect  to  it.  As  respects  doctrine, 
prophets  were  just  interpreters  of  the  law,  adding  nothing 
to  it,  although  they  spoke  predictions  of  future  events. 
With  this  exception,  all  they  said  was  in  exposition  of  the 
law.  Then  afterwards,  the  Lord  had  prophecy  committed 
to  writing.  There  were  also  historical  details  written  by 
prophets,  but  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  include  the 
Psalms  among  the  prophecies,  being  also  by  inspiration. 
Thus  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  the  Psalms  and  Histories 
made  up  the  word  of  the  Lord,  binding  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment church ;  nor  could  they  turn  either  to  the  right 
hand  or  to  the  left  from  this,  the  word  of  the  Lord.  This 
is  gathered  from  the  celebrated  passage  in  Malachi  iv.  -i, 
where  they  are  enjoined  to  remember  the  law  until  should 
come  the  preaching  of  the  gospel ;  thus  restraining  them 
from  all  adventitious  doctrines  or  departing  in  the  least 
degree  from  the  path  pointed  out  by  Moses ;  for  the  rea- 
son why  David  so  magnificently  extols  the  law  in  Psalms 
xix.  and  cxix.  was  in  order  that  the  Jews  meanwhile 
might  not  long  for  any  extraneous  aid,  all  perfection  being 
included  in  the  law. 

Last  of  all  appears  the  incarnate  wisdom  of  God,  un- 
folding to  us  all  that  the  human  mind  can  comprehend  or 
ought  to  think  of  the  Father.  The  Sun  of  Kighteousness 
having  risen,  we  have  now  the  noon-dav  of  truth.  God, 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,  having  spoken  to 
us  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  to  us 


260  MY  LIFE  AXD  TI:MES. 

by  his  Son.  This,  then,  is  God's  last  and  eternal  testi- 
mony. The  whole  period,  from  the  appearance  of  Christ 
down  to  the  judgment  day,  is  called  the  last  hour,  the 
last  times,  the  last  days ;  therefore,  we  are  to  frame  no 
new  doctrine  for  ourselves,  nor  receive  any  devised  by 
others.  The  Son  is  appointed  our  sole  Teacher  in  the 
solemn  words  spoken  from  heaven ;  hear  him.  Indeed, 
what  can  be  desired  or  expected  by  man  when  the  Word 
of  Life  has  appeared  and  explained  himself  ?  Every 
mouth  should  be  stopped  when  once  he  has  spoken,  for  in 
him  are  "hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge." 
(Colossians  ii.  3.) 

Therefore,  let  this  be  a  sure  axiom:  Xothing  else  is  to 
be  held  (habendum  esse  Dei  verhinn  )  as  a  wnrd  of  God,  to 
which  place  is  to  be  given  in  the  church,  unless,  tirst,  it 
be  contained  in  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  then  in  the 
apostolic  writings,  and  the  only  right  method  of  teaching 
in  the  church  is  according  to  the  prescription  and  rule  of 
his  word.  (The  reader  can  see  here  the  doctrine  formally 
set  forth  by  Calvin,  that  nothing  is  projier  in  the  worship 
of  God  unless  it  has  a  divine  right  to  be  there.)  Here, 
says  Calvin,  we  also  infer  that  nothing  else  was  permitted 
to  the  apostles  than  to  the  prophets,  viz.,  to  expound  the 
ancient  scriptures,  and  show  that  what  they  contained 
was  fulfilled  in  Christ ;  and  to  do  even  this  they  required 
to  have  the  spirit  of  Christ.  For  his  command  to  them 
was,  "Go,  teach  whatsoever  I  have  commanded."  Else- 
where he  twice  repeats,  "Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi ;  for  one 
is  your  Master,  even  Christ."  And  then  he  promises  to 
give  them  the  Spirit  of  Truth  to  guide  them  into  all 
truth. 

Accordingly,  Peter,  from  the  mouth  of  his  Master, 
commands,  "If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the 
oracles  of  God"  ;  that  is,  speak  nothing  but  the  command- 
ments of  God,  and  always  boldly,  as  with  authority  from 
God.  Thus  we  are  to  banish  from  the  church  of  the  faith- 
ful all  inventions  of  the  human  mind,  no  matter  from 
what  head  proceeding,  so  that  only  the  pure  word  of  God 
shall  remain ;  and  to  discard  all  the  decrees  or  fictions  of 
men  (whatever  be  their  rank),  that  only  the  decrees  of 
God  may  remain.    These  are  the  weapons  of  our  warfare, 


CAJA'i:s's   IXSTITUTES.  261 

wliich  are  not  carnal,  but  mighty  through  God.  Such  is 
the  supreme  power  with  which  pastors — called  by  whatso- 
ever name — are  invested,  namely,  to  dare  all  boldly  for 
the  word  of  God ;  compelling  all  ranks,  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest,  to  yield  and  obey  its  majesty;  trusting  to 
its  power  alone  to  build  up  the  house  of  God,  and  over- 
throw the  house  of  Satan ;  feeding  the  sheep  and  chasing 
away  the  wolves;  instructing  and  exhorting  the  docile; 
accusing,  rebuking,  and  subduing  the  rebellious  and  petu- 
lant; binding  and  loosing;  in  fine,  if  need  be,  to  thunder 
and  to  lighten  {fulgurent  denique,  si  opus  est,  ac  fulmi- 
nent)  ;  but  all  in  the  word  of  God.  Ihere  is  this  differ- 
ence, however,  between  the  apostles  and  their  successors : 
they  were  the  sure  and  authentic  amanuenses  of  the 
Spirit,  hence  their  writings  are  the  oracles  of  God,  w^hile 
their  successors  are  only  to  teach  what  is  delivered  in  the 
holy  Scriptures.  It  does  not  now  belong,  therefore,  to 
faithful  ministers  to  coin  any  new  doctrine,  but  only  to 
adhere  to  those  doctrines  to  which  all  without  exception 
are  made  subject.  This  applies  not  only  to  individuals, 
but  to  the  whole  church.  Paul  was  apostle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, yet  declares  he  had  no  dominion  over  their  faith. 
If  Paul  dared  not,  who  will  now  dare  arrogate  to  himself 
any  such  dominion  ?  But  it  will  be  said,  that  with  regard 
to  the  whole  church  the  case  is  different.  I  answer  that 
Paul  meets  the  objection  when  he  says  that  faith  comes 
by  hearing,  that  is,  by  hearing  God's  written  word,  and 
that  only  and  alone.  Hence  there  is  no  place  left  for  any 
word  of  man.  True  faith  in  God's  word  will  have 
strength  enough  to  stand  intrepid  and  invincible  against 
Satan,  the  machinations  of  hell  and  the  whole  world. 
This  strength  is  to  be  found  only  in  the  word  of  God. 
Here,  then,  is  a  rule  of  universal  application — God  de- 
prives man  of  the  power  of  producing  any  new  doctrine, 
in  order  that  he  alone  may  be  our  Master  in  spiritual 
teaching,  as  he  alone  is  true,  and  can  neither  lie  nor  de- 
ceive. This  rule  applies  not  less  to  the  whole  church  than 
to  every  individual  believer. 

The  ninth  chapter  treats  of  councils  and  their  author- 
ity; that  is  to  say,  of  the  assemblies  of  ecclesiastical 
rulers,  whether  provincial  or  general.     The  former  an- 


262  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

swer  to  the  General  Assemblies  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  of  other  Protestant  bodies ;  but  the  General 
Council  of  the  papists  falsely  claims  universal  authority 
over  the  whole  church.  In  this  chapter,  therefore,  Calvin 
first  discusses  the  authority  of  councils  or  assemblies  in 
delivering  dogmas  (Sec.  1-7).  The  errors  of  certain 
general  councils  discussed  in  Sections  8-12  will  be  passed 
over  and  Sections  13  and  11  taken  up,  wherein  is  dis- 
cussed the  power  of  councils  or  assemblies  over  the  inter- 
pretation of  scripture. 

Calvin  at  the  outset  explains  the  zeal  of  Rome  in  mag- 
nifying church  power,  as  due  entirely  to  their  wish  to 
exalt  the  Pontiff  and  his  conclave,  on  w'hom  they  bestow 
all  they  can  extort.  He  professes  the  hearty  veneration 
which  he  feels  for  the  ancient  councils,  and  would  have  all 
hold  them  in  due  honor ;  but  a  limit  must  be  set  to  this 
lest  Christ  be  dishonored.  It  is  his  right  to  preside  over 
all  assemblies,  and  he  will  not  share  the  honor  with  any 
man.  IvTow,  he  presides  only  when  he  governs  the  whole 
assembly  by  his  word  and  Spirit.  Again,  in  attributing 
to  councils  less  than  is  claimed  for  them  by  Rome,  it  is 
not  that  he  is  afraid  of  them,  they  being  against  us  and 
for  Rome,  because  he  is  amply  provided  from  the  scrip- 
tures with  the  means  not  only  of  sustaining  his  o"uti 
doctrine,  but  also  of  overthrowing  the  whole  papacy; 
though,  if  the  case  required  it,  ancient  councils  furnish 
us  with  what  might  even  be  sufficient  for  both  purposes, 

Now  the  scriptural  authority  of  assemblies  is  found  in 
these  words,  ^'Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.""  But  this 
promise  is  just  as  applicable  to  any  particular  meeting  as 
to  universal  councils.  The  important  part  is  the  condi- 
tion— "in  my  name."  To  say  that  any  council  Avas  at- 
tended by  thousands  of  bishops  will  little  avail,  nor  can 
we  believe  that  such  a  numerous  council  is  guided  by  the 
Sj)irit,  unless  assembled  in  the  name  of  Christ,  since  it 
is  as  possible  for  the  wicked  and  dishonest  to  conspire 
against  Christ  as  for  good  and  honest  lushops  to  meet  in 
his  name.  We  have  clear  proof  of  this  in  many  of  their 
councils.  I  only  deny  that  they  assemble  in  the  name  of 
Christ  who,  disreo-ardine;  his  command  to  add  nothing  to 


Calvin's  institutes.  263 

and  take  nothing  from  his  word,  determine  everything  at 
their  o^vn  pleasure,  and  who,  not  content  with  the  oracles 
of  scripture,  devise  some  novelty  out  of  their  own  head. 
(Deut.  iv.  2;  Eev.  xxii.  18.)  God's  covenant  with  the 
Levitical  priest  was  to  teach  at  his  mouth ;  such,  also,  was 
the  law  for  prophets  and  apostles.  Let  Rome  solve  this 
difficulty  if  she  would  subject  my  faith  to  the  decrees  of 
man. 

Rome  maintains  that  the  truth  is  always  with  the  pas- 
tors, and  the  church  cannot  exist  unless  displayed  in  gen- 
eral councils.  My  answer  is  from  the  prophets :  In  the 
time  of  Isaiah,  God  had  not  yet  abandoned  the  church; 
but  how  did  he  speak  of  the  pastors  ?  '"His  watchmen 
are  blind ;  they  are  all  ignorant,  they  are  all  dimib  dogs, 
they  cannot  bark;  sleeping,  lying  down,  loving  to  slum- 
ber. Yea,  they  are  greedy  dogs  which  never  have  enough, 
and  they  are  shepherds  that  cannot  understand ;  they  all 
look  to  their  own  way"  (Isaiah  Ivi.  10,  11).  See  similar 
denunciations  in  Hosea  ix.  8  ;  Jeremiah  vi.  13  ;  xiv.  14  ; 
Ezekiel  xxii.  25,  26.  Read  the  whole  of  Jeremiah's 
tliirty-third  and  fortieth  chapters.  There  is  more  of  the 
same  kind  throughout  the  prophets ;  nothing  is  of  more 
frequent  recurrence. 

But  while  this  great  evil  prevailed  in  the  Jewish 
cliurch,  was  the  Christian  church  to  be  exempt  from  it  ? 
Would  that  it  were  so ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  declared  that 
it  would  be  otherwise.  Peter's  words  are  clear — -"There 
shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily  shall  bring 
in  damnable  heresies."  See  how  he  here  predicts  impend- 
ing danger,  not  from  ordinary  believers,  but  from  the 
pastors  and  teachers.  How  often  do  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles predict  that  the  greatest  danger  to  the  church  would 
come  from  pastors  !  Paul  openly  declares  that  Antichrist 
would  have  his  seat  in  the  church.  Moreover,  he  says  this 
great  evil  was  almost  at  hand.  He  tells  the  elders  of 
Ephesus  that  among  themselves  should  men  arise  speak- 
ing perverse  things.  If  these  could  degenerate  in  so  short 
a  time,  what  great  corruption  might  not  a  great  series  of 
years  introduce  among  pastors !  It  has  been  thus  in 
almost  every  age — the  safety  of  the  church  does  not  de- 
pend on  the  pastor.    It  was  becoming  that  those  appointed 


264  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

to  preserve  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  church  shoiihl  be 
its  presidents  and  guardians ;  bnt  it  is  one  thing  to  per- 
form what  you  owe,  and  another  to  owe  what  you  do  not 
perform. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood  as  desiring  to  overthrow 
the  authority  of  pastors.  All  that  I  advise  is  that  we 
exercise  discrimination,  not  supposing  that  all  who  call 
themselves  pastors  are  such  indeed.  But  the  Pope,  with 
his  whole  herd  of  bishops,  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
they  have  the  name  of  pastors,  obedience  to  God's  word 
being  shaken  off,  invert  all  things  at  their  pleasure; 
meanwhile  claiming  that  they  cannot  be  destitute  of  the 
light  of  truth,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  perpetually  resides 
in  them,  that  the  church  subsists  in  them  and  dies  with 
them,  as  if  the  Lord  did  not  punish  wickedness  now  as 
of  old,  by  smiting  pastors  with  astonishment  and  blind- 
ness (Zech.  xii.  4).  JSTor  do  these  most  stolid  (stolidis- 
simi)m.en  understand  that  they  are  just  chiming  in  with 
those  who  warred  with  the  word  of  God,  as  said  the  ene- 
mies of  Jeremiah,  "Come  and  let  us  devise  devices  against 
Jeremiah,  for  the  law  shall  not  perish  from  the  priest,  nor 
counsel  from  the  wise,  nor  the  word  from  the  prophet 
(Jeremiah  xviii.  18). 

Hence  it  is  easy  to  reply  to  their  allegations  concerning 
general  councils.  The  Jews  undoubtedly  had  a  true 
church  under  the  prophets.  But  we  hear  the  Lord  de- 
nouncing  the  priests  of  that  day — not  one  or  two  of  them, 
but  the  whole  order.  (See  Jeremiah  iv.  9,  and  see  Ezekiel 
vii.  2G ;  Micah  iii.  6.)  But  had  a  general  council  then 
been  composed  of  the  priests,  had  all  men  of  this  descrip- 
tion been  collected  together,  what  spirit  would  have  pre- 
sided over  their  meeting?  Ahab's  notable  council  is  a 
fair  example  of  this  kind  (1  Kings  xxii.  6,  22).  There 
were  four  hundred  prophets  present,  but  a  lying  spirit  in 
all  their  mouths.  They  unanimously  condemn  the  truth. 
]\Iicaiah  is  judged  a  heretic,  smitten  and  cast  into  prison. 
So  was  it  done  to  Jeremiah,  and  so  to  the  other  prophets. 

But  the  most  memorable  example  of  a  council  without 
God  is  that  which  met  and  condemned  Christ.  Nothing 
is  wanting,  so  far  as  external  appearance  is  concerned. 
Had  there  been  no  church  there,  Christ  had  never  joined 


Calvin's  institutes.  265 

in  their  worship.  A  solemn  meeting  is  held.  The  high 
priest  presided,  the  whole  sacerdotal  order  is  present,  yet 
Christ  is  condemned  and  his  truth  is  put  to  flight.  In 
Thessalonians  ii.  3,  Paul  foretells  a  defection ;  but  that 
was  a  defection  which  could  not  come  until  the  pastors 
should  first  forsake  God.  We  cannot,  therefore,  admit 
that  the  church  consists  in  a  meeting  of  pastors,  the  Lord 
having  nowhere  promised  that  they  should  always  be 
good,  but  having  sometimes  foretold  that  they  should  be 
wicked. 

Having  proved  that  there  is  no  power  in  assemblies  to 
set  up  any  new  doctrine,  what  power  belongs  to  them  in 
the  interpretation  of  scripture  ?  Calvin  readily  admits 
that  when  any  doctrine  is  controverted,  there  is  no  better 
plan  than  for  a  council  of  true  bishops  to  meet  and  discuss 
the  question,  and  then  agree  in  common  upon  the  exact 
form  in  which  the  point  should  be  stated.  Paul  prescribes 
this  method  when  he  gives  the  power  of  deciding  to  any 
single  church ;  much  more  is  this  proper  to  the  churches 
met  in  common  council.  If  any  one  trouble  the  church 
with  some  novelty  in  doetrine,  and  a  dissension  rises  and 
spreads,  the  churches  should  first  meet,  and  after  due  ex- 
amination and  discussion,  decide  according  to  the  scrip- 
ture. This  was  done  in  the  case  of  Arius  by  the  Council 
of  N^ice,  and  in  the  case  of  Eunomius  and  Macedonius  by 
the  Council  of  Constantinople ;  in  the  case  of  ISTestorius 
by  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  In  short,  this  was  the  usual 
method,  from  the  first,  for  the  preserving  of  imity.  But 
let  us  remember  that  all  ages  and  places  are  not  favored 
with  an  Athanasius,  a  Basil,  a  Cyril,  and  like  vindicators 
of  sound  doctrine  whom  the  Lord  then  raised  up.  ISTay, 
let  us  consider  what  happened  in  the  second  Council  of 
Ephesus  when  the  Eutychian  heresy  prevailed.  Flavi- 
anus,  of  holy  memory,  with  some  pious  men,  was  driven 
into  exile,  and  many  similar  crimes  were  committed,  be- 
cause, instead  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  Dioscorus,  a  fac- 
tious man,  of  a  very  bad  disposition,  presided.  But  the 
church  was  not  there.  I  confess  it;  for  I  always  hold 
that  the  truth  does  not  perish  in  the  church,  even  though 
trodden  down  by  one  council ;  for  the  truth  will  be  won- 
derfully preserved  by  the  Lord  to  rise  again  in  his  own 


266  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

time,  and  prove  victorious.  But  this  I  perpetually  deny, 
that  every  interpretation  of  scripture  is  true  and  certain 
which  has  received  the  votes  of  a  council. 

When,  however,  the  Eomanists  maintain  that  councils 
have  the  power  of  interpreting  scripture,  they  have  an- 
other object  in  view,  namely,  that  they  may  make  of  it  a 
pretext  for  alleging  that  everything  determined  by  the 
council  is  an  interpretation  of  scripture.  Of  purgatory, 
intercession  of  saints,  and  auricular  confession,  there  is 
not  one  word  in  scripture.  But  these  are  all  to  be  held  as 
interpretations  of  scripture.  Not  only  so,  but  whatever 
a  council  has  determined  against  scripture  is  to  have  the 
name  of  an  interpretation  of  scripture.  Christ  bids  all 
drink  of  the  cup,  but  the  Council  of  Constance  (1414) 
prohibited  giving  it  to  the  people,  and  ordained  that 
priests  alone  should  drink.  Paul  terms  the  prohibition  of 
marriage  a  doctrine  of  devils,  and  says  that  marriage  is 
honorable  in  all ;  but  Rome,  having  interdicted  marriage 
to  her  priests,  insists  that  this  is  a  true  and  genuine  inter- 
pretation of  scripture.  Their  claim  for  councils  of  the 
power  of  approving  or  disapproving  scripture  is  a  blas- 
phemy which  deserves  not  to  be  mentioned.  I  will  just 
ask  one  question:  If  the  authority  of  any  scripture  is 
founded  on  the  approbation  of  the  church,  will  they  quote 
the  decree  of  a  council  to  that  effect  ?  At  the  Council  of 
Xice,  Arius  was  vanquished  by  passages  from  the  Gospel 
of  John.  But  according  to  Rome,  he  was  at  liberty  to  re- 
pudiate them  because  no  council  had  then  approved  them. 
They  allege  an  old  catalogue,  which  they  call  a  canon. 
Again  I  ask:  What  council  published  that  canon  (  They 
aie  dumb.  Also,  what  do  they  believe  that  canon  to  be? 
The  ancients  themselves  are  little  agreed  about  this.  If 
effect  is  to  be  given  to  what  Jerome  says,  the  Maccabees, 
Tobit,  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  like,  must  take  their  place  in 
the  Apocrypha;  but  this  they  will  not  tolerate  on  any 
account. 

The  tenth  chapter  treats  of  the  power  of  making  laws ; 
the  cruelty  of  the  Pope  and  his  adherents,  in  this  respect, 
in  tyrannically  opp'-essing  and  destroying  souls.  In  this 
chapter  Calvin  discusses,  I.  Human  constitutions  in  gen- 
eral ;  the  distinction  between  civil  and  ecclesiastical  laws ; 


CALVlW's  HSrSTITUTES.  267 

Oonscience,  why  and  in  what  sense  ministers  cannot  im- 
pose laws  on  the  conscience  (Sec.  1-8).  II.  Traditions 
or  popish  constitutions  relating  to  ceremonies  and  dis- 
cipline, and  the  many  vices  in  them,  also  arguments  in 
favor  of  those  traditions  refuted  (Sec.  9-2(5)  will  be 
passed  over,  and  ecclesiastical  constitutions  that  are  good 
and  lawful  (Sec.  27-32)  will  be  taken  up. 

We  come  to  the  second  part  of  power  claimed  by  Rome 
for  her  councils,  namely,  that  of  making  laws,  from  which 
source  innumerable  traditions  have  arisen  to  become 
deadly  snares  to  miserable  souls.  These  are  just  like  the 
burdens  imposed  by  scribes  and  Pharisees,  which,  how- 
ever, they  touched  not  with  one  of  their  fingers  (Matt. 
xxiii.  4;  Luke  xi.  16).  I  have  shovsm  (Book  III,,  Chap. 
iv..  Sec.  4-7)  how  cruelly  murderous  is  their  law  of  au- 
ricular confession ;  their  other  laws  may  not  seem  so  vio- 
lent, but  the  most  tolerable  ones  press  tyrannically  on  the 
conscience.  The  question  now  is,  can  the  church  make 
laws  to  bind  our  conscience  ?  This  question  concerns  the 
great  affairs  of  God's  authority  as  the  only  lawgiver,  and 
our  spiritual  liberty,  civil  order  not  being  here  consid- 
ered. Whatever  laws  men,  without  the  authority  of 
•God's  word,  have  made  respecting  our  relations  to  him, 
we  call  human  traditions.  It  is  these  I  contend  against, 
and  not  against  those  sacred  and  useful  regulations  which 
the  church  must  make  respecting  discipline,  decency  and 
peace.  I  only  insist  that  necessity  must  not  be  imposed 
upon  consciences  set  free  by  Christ,  and  which  without 
this  freedom  cannot  have  peace.  Christ  must  be  ac- 
knowledged as  our  Deliverer,  our  only  King.  We  are  to 
be  ruled  by  the  only  law  of  liberty,  the  sacred  word  of 
the  gospel,  otherwise  we  cannot  retain  the  grace  we  have 
already  received  in  Christ.  We  must  be  subject  to  no 
bondage — be  bound  by  no  chains. 

Rome  represents  the  burdens  she  has  imposed  on  the 
conscience  as  few  and  light.  In  fact,  they  cannot  be 
counted,  are  exacted  w^ith  the  greatest  rigor,  very  many 
of  them  difficult,  and  the  whole  taken  together  impossible 
to  be  observed.  How,  then,  can  those  on  whom  this  moun- 
tain of  laws  is  imposed  avoid  being  perplexed  with 
anxiety  and  filled  with  terror  ?    I  therefore  impugn  these 


268  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

church  laws  enacted  to  bind  the  conscience  inwardly  be- 
fore God,  and  imposed  as  rules  necessary  to  salvation. 

]Many  are  puzzled  about  this  nuitter  because  they  do 
not  distinguish  between  the  external  forum  and  the  foriun 
of  conscience ;  that  is,  between  courts  of  men  and  of  God. 
This  perplexity  is  increased  by  the  words  of  Paul  when 
he  enjoins  obedience  to  magistrates  "not  only  for  wrath, 
but  also  for  conscience'  sake,"  which  seem  to  teach  that 
civil  laws  (that  is,  human  laws)  can  bind  the  conscience. 
This  difficulty  is  to  be  solved  by  etymology.  When  men 
have  knowledge,  that  is  science;  but  when,  in  addition 
to  this,  they  have  a  sense  of  the  divine  judgment,  as  a  wit- 
ness not  permitting  them  to  hide  their  sins,  but  bringing 
them  up  as  criminals,  this  is  called  conscience.  This  is 
what  Paul  means  when  he  says  that  conscience  bears  wit- 
ness, and  thoughts  accuse  or  else  excuse.  Hence  the  old 
proverb,  "Conscience  is  a  thousand  witnesses."  Peter 
also  speaks  of  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  before 
God. 

Sometimes,  indeed,  conscience  does  extend  to  men,  as 
when  Paul  declares,  "Herein  do  I  exercise  myself  to  have 
always  a  conscience  void  of  offence  toward  God  and  to- 
ward men."  But  this  is  said  because  the  benefits  of  a 
good  conscience  flow  forth  and  reach  even  to  men.  Prop- 
erly speaking,  however,  conscience  respects  God  alone,  as 
I  have  already  said.  Another  rule  also  holds  in  the  case 
of  things  which  are  in  themselves  indifferent.  We  ought 
to  abstain  so  as  not  to  give  offence,  but  conscience  is  free. 
After  being  warned  against  idol-meat,  for  example,  it 
would  be  -v^Tong  for  the  believer  to  eat  it ;  but  the  neces- 
sity is  in  respect  to  a  brother's  weakness,  and  not  to  the 
Lord.  The  law  binds  the  external  act,  but  the  conscience 
is  free. 

Let  us  return  to  human  laws.  They  are  unlawful 
when  imposed  as  of  religious  obligation  and  to  bind  the 
conscience ;  for  conscience  has  to  do  not  with  man,  but 
with  God  only. 

But  we  have  not  yet  explained  the  difficulty  which 
arises  from  the  words  of  Paul.  For  if  we  must  obey  mag- 
istrates, not  only  from  fear  of  punishment,  but  for  con- 
science' sake,  it  seems  to  follow  that  their  laws  have  do- 


CALVIN^S  IIS^STITUTES.  269 

minion  over  the  conscience.  And  then  the  same  thing 
wonkl  follow  as  to  church  laws.  I  answer  that  we  must 
distinguish  between  the  genus  and  the  species;  for 
although  individual  laws  may  not  bind  the  conscience,  yet 
we  are  bound  by  the  general  law  of  God  to  honor  magis- 
trates. Here  is  the  hinge  on  which  turns  Paul's  discus- 
sion, viz.,  magistrates  are  to  be  honored  because  ordained 
of  God ;  but  he  by  no  means  teaches  that  their  laws  ex- 
tend to  the  internal  government  of  the  soul,  since  he 
everywhere  proclaims  that  God's  worship  and  the  spirit- 
ual law  of  right  living  are  superior  to  all  decrees  of  men. 
Another  thing  worthy  of  notice  and  depending  on  what 
has  been  said  before,  is  that  human  laws,  whether  by 
magistrate  or  church — I  speak  of  such  as  are  good  ones — 
are  necessary  to  be  observed,  but  do  not  bind  the  con- 
science, because  the  whole  necessity  of  observing  them  de- 
pends on  the  general  end,  and  consists  not  in  the  thing  it- 
self which  is  commanded.  Very  different,  however,  is  the 
case  of  those  which  prescribe  a  new  form  of  worshipping 
God,  and  introduce  necessity  into  things  that  are  free. 

Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  church's  having  no  proper 
legislative  power  is  the  source  w^hence  came  that  state- 
ment of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  ''The 
whole  counsel  of  God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for 
his  o-wn  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  is  either 
expressly  set  down  in  scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence  may  be  deduced  from  scripture ;  unto  which 
nothing  is  at  any  time  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  reve- 
lations of  the  Spirit,  or  by  traditions  of  men.  But  there 
are  some  circumstances  concerning  the  worship  of  God, 
and  the  government  of  the  church  common  to  human 
actions  and  societies  which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light 
of  nature  and  Christian  prudence."  God  is  the  only 
lawgiver ;  no  laws  but  his  revealed  ones  bind  the  con- 
science. Those  laws  cover  every  point  of  human  worship, 
human  belief  and  human  practice.  The  church  can  only 
make  circumstantial  rules  of  order  and  decency.  As  to 
what  Paul  says  concerning  the  law  of  the  magistrate  to  be 
obeyed  for  conscience'  sake,  Calvin  holds  that  to  be  God's 
general  direction  of  paying  respect  to  lawful  authority, 
but  no  human  law,  Avhether  of  church  or  state,  can  bind 


270  :\rY  i.ii-^e  axd  ti.mes. 

our  consciences.  Our  liberty  of  conscience  is  beyond  their 
sphere.  Whatever  laws  the  magistrate  puts  forth  that  are 
good  and  just,  we  shall,  of  course,  obey  in  obedience  to 
God's  command.  The  whole  necessity  or  obligation  to 
obey  them  respects  the  general  end,  that  is,  of  regard  to 
God's  command,  and  respects  not  any  inherent  authority 
in  the  magistrate's  command  itself.  He  may  command 
what  is  right;  he  may  command  what  is  wrong.  Your 
obligation  to  obey  springs  not  from  the  magistrate's  com- 
manding it,  but  from  the  general  command  of  God ;  and 
if  the  command  is  against  your  conscience,  there  is  no  obli- 
gation to  obey  it.  Any  commands  from  the  magistrate 
which  introduce  new  forms  of  divine  worship,  or  which 
introduce  necessity  into  things  that  are  free,  we  are  not 
bound  to  obey. 

Calvin  continues :  "Everything  relating  to  a  perfect 
rule  of  life  God  has  comprehended  in  his  word,  so  that 
he  has  left  nothing  for  men  to  add  to  the  summary  there 
given.  The  reasons  for  this  are,  first,  that  since  all  recti- 
tude of  human  conduct  must  be  what  accords  with  the 
Creator's  will,  we  must  regard  him  alone  as  the  master 
and  guide  of  our  life ;  and,  secondly,  that  he  might  show 
that  there  is  nothing  which  he  more  requires  of  us  than 
obedience,  (James  iv.  11,  12;  Isaiah  xxxiii,  22;  1  Peter 
V.  2).  Thus  is  cut  off  all  the  power  claimed  by  those  who 
would  take  it  upon  them  to  order  anything  in  the  church 
without  authority  from  the  word  of  God." 

In  vicAV,  then,  of  the  two  reasons  why  God  claims  for 
himself  to  be  our  sole  lawgiver,  and  for  which  ho  forbids 
men  to  take  that  honor  to  themselves,  it  will  be  easy  to 
decide  that  all  human  constitutions  or  invented  improve- 
ments by  men  in  the  worship  or  service  of  God,  are  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  his  law,  especially  when  their  observ- 
ance is  bound  upon  the  conscience  as  of  necessary  obliga- 
tion. The  first  of  the  two  reasons  in  question  is  urged 
by  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  against  the  false 
apostles,  who  attempted  to  lay  new  burdens  on  the 
churches.  In  this  epistle  he  maintains  that  the  true  wor- 
ship of  God  is  not  to  be  sought  from  men,  the  Lord  having 
fully  taught  that  to  us  himself.  All  this  is  fully  set  forth 
in  the  first  and  second  chapters.     In  the  end  of  the  second 


Calvin's  institutes.  271 

chapter  lie  more  decisively  condemns  all  factitious  mode- 
of  worship,  and  all  precepts  concernino;  the  worship  of 
God  which  men  devise  at  their  own  pleasure  or  receive 
from  others.  Similarly,  passages  in  which  Paul  forbids 
the  binding  of  fetters  on  the  conscience  are  found  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Galatians,  where  reference  is  also  made  to 
like  work  by  false  apostles. 

Of  Ecclesiastical  Rules  that  are  Lawful. 

The  apostle  enjoins  that  all  things  be  done  decently  and 
in  order,  which  requires  the  observance  of  rules  to  be 
ordained  by  the  church.  But  these  rules  of  mere  decency 
and  order  must  not  be  confounded  with  such  as  bind  the 
conscience.  The  decency  which  Paul  commends  is  a  regu- 
lated use  of  rites  that  produce  reverence  and  gravity  in 
sacred  matters ;  while  the  order  he  enjoins  requires  that 
they  who  preside  shall  know  the  law  and  rule  of  right 
government,  and  that  those  who  are  governed  should 
cheerfully  yield  obedience  to  right  discipline. 

The  remainder  of  this  chapter  consists  of  four  sections, 
in  which  Calvin  presents  the  reader  with  a  full  delinea- 
tion of  his  idea  of  decency  and  order.  They  constitute  a 
most  charming  exhibition  of  the  reformer's  wisdom  and 
piety,  of  the  clearness  of  his  intellect,  of  his  strict  ad- 
herence to  principle,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  the  moder- 
ation of  his  views  and  the  breadth  of  his  charity. 

We  shall  not,  therefore,  give  the  name  of  decency  to 
that  which  only  ministers  an  empty  pleasure ;  such,  for 
example,  as  is  seen  in  that  theatrical  display  which  the 
j)apists  exhibit  in  their  public  service,  where  nothing  ap- 
pears but  a  mask  of  uselss  splendor,  and  luxury  without 
any  fruit.  But  we  give  the  name  of  decency  to  that 
which,  suited  to  the  reverence  of  sacred  mysteries,  forms 
a  fit  exercise  for  piety,  or  at  least  gives  an  ornament 
adapted  to  the  action,  and  is  not  without  fruit,  but  re- 
minds believers  of  the  great  modesty,  seriousness  and 
reverence  with  which  sacred  things  ought  to  be  treated. 
Moreover,  ceremonies,  in  order  to  be  exercises  of  piety, 
must  lead  us  directly  to  Christ.  In  like  manner,  we  shall 
not  make  order  consist  in  that  nugatory  pomp  which  gives 
nothing  but  evanescent  splendor,  but  in  that  arrangement 


272 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


which  removes  all  confusion,  barbarism,  contumacy,  all 
turbulence  and  dissension.  Of  the  former  class,  we  have 
examples  (1  Corinthians  xi.  5,  21),  where  Paul  says  that 
profane  entertainments  must  not  be  intermingled  with 
the  sacred  supper  of  the  Lord ;  that  women  must  not  ap- 
pear in  public  uncovered.  And  there  are  many  other 
things  which  we  have  in  daily  practice,  such  as  praying  on 
our  knees,  and  with  our  head  uncovered,  administering 
the  sacraments  of  the  Lord,  not  sordidly,  but  with  some 
degree  of  dignity;  employing  some  degree  of  solemnity 
in  the  burial  of  our  dead,  and  so  forth.  In  the  other  class 
are  the  hours  set  apart  for  public  prayer,  sermon  and 
solemn  services ;  during  sermon,  quiet  and  silence,  fixed 
places,  singing  of  hymns,  days  set  apart  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  supper,  the  prohibition  of  Paul  against 
women  teaching  in  the  church,  and  such  like.  To  the 
same  list,  especially,  may  be  referred  those  things  which 
preserve  discipline,  as  catechising,  ecclesiastical  censures, 
excommunication,  fastings,  etc.  Thus  all  ecclesiastical 
constitutions,  which  we  admit  to  be  sacred  and  salutary, 
may  be  reduced  to  two  heads,  the  one  relating  to  rites  and 
ceremonies,  the  other  to  discipline  and  peace. 

But  as  there  is  here  a  danger,  on  the  one  hand,  lest  false 
bishops  should  thence  derive  a  pretext  for  their  impious 
and  tyrannical  laws,  and,  on  the  other,  lest  some,  too  apt 
to  take  alarm,  should,  from  fear  of  the  above  evils,  leave 
no  place  for  laws,  however  holy,  it  may  here  be  proper  to 
declare,  that  I  approve  of  those  human  constitutions  only 
which  are  founded  on  the  authority  of  God  and  derived 
from  scripture,  and  are,  therefore,  altogether  divine.  Let 
us  take,  for  example,  the  bending  of  the  knee,  which  is 
made  in  public  prayer.  It  is  asked,  whether  this  is  a  hu- 
man tradition,  which  any  one  is  at  liberty  to  repudiate 
or  neglect  ?  I  say,  that  it  is  human,  and  that  at  the  same 
time  it  is  divine.  It  is  of  God,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  part 
of  that  decency,  the  care  and  observance  of  which  is 
recommended  by  the  apostle ;  and  it  is  of  men,  inasmuch 
as  it  specially  determines  what  was  indicated  in  general, 
rather  than  exi)ounde(l.  From  this  one  example,  we  may 
judge  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  whole  class,  viz.,  that 
the  whole  sum  of  righteousness,  and  all  the  parts  of  divine 


Calvin's  institutes.  273 

worship,  and  everything  necessary  to  salvation,  the  Lord 
has  faithfully  comprehended,  and  clearly  unfolded  in  his 
sacred  oracles,  so  that  in  them  he  alone  is  the  only  Master 
to  be  heard.  But  as,  in  external  discipline  and  cere- 
monies, he  has  not  been  pleased  to  prescribe  every  par- 
ticular that  we  ought  to  observe  (he  foresaw  that  this  de- 
pended on  the  nature  of  the  times,  and  that  one  form 
would  not  suit  all  ages),  in  them  we  must  have  recourse 
to  the  general  rules  which  he  has  given,  employing  them 
to  test  whatever  the  necessity  of  the  church  may  require 
to  be  enjoined  for  order  and  decency.  Lastly,  as  he  has 
not  delivered  any  express  command,  because  things  of 
this  nature  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  and,  for  the 
edification  of  the  church,  should  be  accommodated  to  the 
varying  circumstances  of  each  age  and  nation,  it  will  be 
proper,  as  the  interest  of  the  church  may  require,  to 
■change  and  abrogate  the  old,  as  well  as  to  introduce  new 
forms.  I  confess,  indeed,  that  we  are  not  to  innovate 
rashly,  or  incessantly,  or  for  trivial  causes.  Charity  is 
the  best  judge  of  what  tends  to  hurt  or  to  edify;  if  we 
allow  her  to  be  guide,  all  things  will  be  safe. 

Things  which  have  been  appointed  according  to  this 
rule,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Christian  people  to  observe  with 
a  free  conscience  indeed,  and  without  superstition,  but 
also  with  a  pious  and  ready  inclination  to  obey.  They 
are  not  to  hold  them  in  contempt,  nor  pass  them  by  with 
careless  indifference,  far  less  openly  to  violate  them  in 
pride  and  contumacy.  You  will  ask,  what  liberty  of  con- 
science will  there  be  in  such  cautious  observances  ?  Nay, 
this  liberty  will  admirably  appear  when  we  shall  hold 
that  these  are  not  fixed  and  perpetual  obligations  to 
which  we  are  astricted,  but  external  rudiments  for  human 
infirmity,  which,  though  we  do  not  all  need,  we,  however, 
all  use,  because  we  are  bound  to  cherish  mutual  charity 
towards  each  other.  This  we  may  recognize  in  the  ex- 
amples given  above.  What  ?  Is  religion  placed  in  a  wo- 
man's bonnet,  so  that  it  is  unlawful  for  her  to  go  out  with 
her  head  uncovered  ?  Is  her  silence  fixed  by  a  decree 
which  cannot  be  violated  without  the  greatest  wickedness  ? 
Is  there  any  mystery  in  bending  the  knee,  or  in  burying 
.a  dead  body,  which  cannot  be  omitted  without  a  crime  ? 


274  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

By  no  means.  For,  slioiild  a  woman  require  to  make  siicb 
haste  in  assisting  a  neighbor  that  she  has  not  time  to 
cover  her  head,  she  sins  not  in  running  out  with  her  head 
uncovered.  And  there  are  some  occasions  on  which  it  is 
not  less  seasonable  for  her  to  speak  tlian  on  others  to  be 
silent.  Xothing,  moreover,  forbids  him  who,  from  dis- 
ease, cannot  bend  his  knees,  to  pray  standing.  In  fine, 
it  is  better  to  bury  a  dead  man  quickly  than  from  want  of 
grave-clothes,  or  the  absence  of  those  who  should  attend 
the  funeral,  to  wait  till  it  rot  away  unburied.  Neverthe- 
less, in  those  matters,  the  customs  and  institutions  of 
the  country,  in  short,  humanity  and  the  rules  of  modesty 
itself,  declare  what  is  to  be  done  or  avoided.  Here,  if  any 
error  is  committed  through  imprudence  or  forgetfulness^ 
no  crime  is  perpetrated;  but  if  this  is  done  from  con- 
tempt, such  contumacy  must  be  disapproved.  In  like 
manner,  it  is  of  no  consequence  what  the  days  and  hours 
are,  what  the  nature  of  the  edifices,  and  what  psalms  are 
sung  on  each  day;  but  it  is  proper  that  there  should  be 
certain  days  and  stated  hours,  and  a  place  fit  for  receiving 
all,  if  any  regard  is  had  to  the  preservation  of  peace.  For 
what  a  seed-bed  of  quarrels  will  confusion  in  such  matters 
be,  if  every  one  is  allowed  at  pleasure  to  alter  what  per- 
tains to  common  order  ?  All  will  not  be  satisfied  with 
the  same  course,  if  matters,  placed,  as  it  were,  on  debat- 
able ground,  are  left  to  the  determination  of  individuals. 
But  if  any  one  here  becomes  clamorous,  and  would  be 
wiser  than  he  ought,  let  him  consider  how  he  will  approve 
his  moroseness  to  the  Lord.  Paul's  answer  ought  to  sat- 
isfy us,  ''If  any  man  seem  to  be  cont-entious,  we  have  no 
such  custom,  neither  the  churches  of  God." 

Moreover,  we  must  use  the  utmost  diligence  to  prevent 
any  error  from  creeping  in  which  may  either  taint  or 
sully  this  pure  use.  In  this  ^ve  shall  succeed,  if  whatever 
observances  we  use  are  manifestly  useful,  and  very  few  in 
number ;  especially  if  to  this  is  added  the  teaching  of  a 
faithful  pastor,  which  may  prevent  access  to  erroneous 
opinions.  The  eifect  of  this  procedure  is,  that  in  all  these 
matters  each  retains  his  freedom,  and  yet,  at  the  same 
time,  voluntarily  subjects  it  to  a  kind  of  necessity,  in  so 
far  as  the  decency,  of  which  we  have  spoken,  or  charity,. 


CALVIJSr''s   INSTITUTES.  275 

demands.  !N"ext,  that,  in  the  observance  of  these  things, 
we  may  not  fall  into  any  superstition,  nor  rigidly  require 
too  much  from  others,  let  us  not  imagine  that  the  worship 
of  God  is  improved  by  a  multitude  of  ceremonies ;  let  not 
church  despise  church  because  of  a  diiference  in  external 
discipline.  Lastly,  instead  of  here  laying  down  any  per- 
petual law  for  ourselves,  let  us  refer  the  whole  end  and 
use  of  observances  to  the  edification  of  the  church,  at 
whose  request  let  us  without  oifence  allow  not  only  some- 
thing to  be  changed,  but  even  observances  which  were 
formerly  in  use  to  be  inverted;  for  the  present  age  is  a 
proof  that  the  nature  of  times  allows  that  certain  rites, 
not  otherwise  impious  or  unbecoming,  may  be  abrogated 
according  to  circumstances.  Such  was  the  ignorance  and 
blindness  of  former  times ;  with  such  erroneous  ideas 
and  pertinacious  zeal  did  churches  formerly  cling  to  cere- 
monies, that  they  can  scarcely  be  purified  from  monstrous 
superstitions  without  the  removal  of  many  ceremonies 
which  were  formerly  established,  not  without  cause,  and 
which  in  themselves  are  not  chargeable  with  any  impiety. 

The  eleventh  chapter  treats  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion, its  necessity,  origin,  and  essential  parts,  viz.,  the 
sacred  ministry  of  the  word,  and  discipline  of  excommu- 
nication, of  which  the  aim,  use  and  abuse  are  explained 
(Sec,  1—8).  The  remaining  sections  of  this  chapter 
(9-16)  are  passed  over,  containing  a  refutation  of  pa- 
pists' arguments  in  defence  of  the  tyranny  of  pontifl:"s, 
their  claim  to  both  swords,  imperial  pomp  and  dignity, 
foreign  jurisdiction,  and  immunity  for  their  priesthood 
from  civil  jurisdiction. 

We  come  now  to  the  third  part  of  ecclesiastical  power, 
which  consists  in  jurisdiction,  upon  which,  in  both  its 
parts,  the  discipline  of  the  church,  in  great  measure,  de- 
pends. Accordingly,  jurisdiction  is  the  principal  part  of 
church  power,  for  it  is  of  absolute  necessity  to  the  church, 
just  as  no  city  or  village  can  exist  without  magistrates 
and  government.  But  this  spiritual  government  of  the 
church  is  altogether  distinct  from  the  civil  government, 
being  the  order  provided  by  the  Lord  for  the  polity  only 
of  his  church ;  for  to  this  end  there  were  established, 
from  the  first,  tribunals  to  take  cognizance  of  morals, 


27G  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

animadvert  on  vices,  and  exercise  the  office  of  the  keys. 
Pan!  speaks  of  these  in  1  (\)rinthians  xii.  28,  under  the 
name  of  "governments"  ;  also  in  Romans  xii.  8,  where  he 
says,  "He  that  ruleth,  with  diligence" ;  likewise  in  1 
Timothy  v.  17,  he  mentions  two  kinds  of  presbyters — 
some  who  labor  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  and  others  who 
only  rule  well ;  for  in  these  places  he  is  speaking  of  the 
power  of  the  keys  which  Christ  bestowed  on  the  church 
in  Matthew  xviii.  15-17,  where  he  orders  that  those  who 
despise  private  admonition  should  be  reported  to  the 
church,  and  if  they  hear  not  the  church,  must  be  ex- 
pelled from  its  communion.  But  these  admonitions  and 
corrections  cannot  be  made  without  investigation ;  hence 
some  judicial  procedure  and  order  is  necessary  to  the 
church.  AVe  speak  not  here  of  the  general  power  of  doc- 
trine, as  in  ]\[atthew  xvi.  19,  John  xx.  23,  but  of  the 
rights  of  the  Sanhedrin  transferred  to  the  Christian 
church,  in  as  far  as  that  was  a  pure  institution  and  pro- 
tective of  the  church  by  heavy  sanctions ;  for  clearly  in 
the  two  passages  above  named  reference  is  to  be  had  to  the 
apostolic  commission,  to  preach  the  word,  to  which  com- 
mission is  added  this  assurance  about  the  binding  and 
loosing  for  the  encouragement  both  of  the  preacher  and  of 
his  hearers.  This  attestation  passes  down  to  all  ages  and 
remains  firm,  rendering  all  certain  and  secure,  that  the 
M'ord  of  the  gospel,  by  whomsoever  preached,  is  the  very 
word  of  God,  promulgated  at  the  supreme  tribunal,  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  life,  ratified  firm  and  fixed  in  heaven. 
Therefore,  in  those  two  texts  the  power  of  the  keys  is  sim- 
ply the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and,  as  to  the  men  who 
preach,  it  is  not  power,  but  simply  ministry. 

iSTow,  in  Matthew  xviii.  17,  18,  we  read  again  of  bind- 
ing and  loosing.  This  passage  is  not  altogether  similar  to 
those  above,  and  must  be  understood  somewhat  diifer- 
ently.  They  are  similar  in  that  both  are  general  state- 
ments ;  that  both  speak  of  the  same  power  of  binding  and 
loosing;  there  is  the  same  command  and  the  same  prom- 
ise. They  differ  in  that  the  former  two  passages  relate 
to  preaching,  but  the  third  to  church  discipline.  On  these 
passages  Rome  builds  confession,  excommunication,  juris- 
diction, legislation  and  indulgences.     She  has  fitted  doors 


Calvin's  institutes.  277 

and  locks  to  the  keys  as  skillfully  as  if  all  her  life  she 
had  been  a  mechanic. 

Some  may  imagine  that  all  these  divine  arrangements 
for  church  discipline  were  only  temporary,  and  that  the 
civil  power,  having  now  become  Christian,  is  perfectly 
competent  to  correct  all  abuses  and  purify  society.  Ac- 
cordingly, Calvin  proceeds  to  point  out  the  dissimilarity 
between  ecclesiastical  and  civil  power.  The  church  has 
no  sword  and  no  prison,  no  power  to  coerce.  ]^or  is  pun- 
ishment ever  the  church's  object,  but  only  repentance. 
The  magistrate  imprisons ;  the  pastor  debars  from  the 
Lord's  table.  But  as  the  magistrate  ought  to  purge  the 
church  of  offences  by  corporal  punishment  and  coercion, 
so  the  minister  ought,  in  his  turn,  to  assist  the  magistrate 
in  diminishing  the  number  of  offenders.  Thus  they  ought 
to  combine  their  efforts,  the  one  being  not  an  impediment, 
but  a  help  to  the  other. 

The  reformer  here  seems  to  sigTiify  that  the  church 
may  very  well  give  thanks  to  the  civil  magistrate  if  he 
helps  her  to  keep  her  members  in  order.  The  discipline 
provided  by  the  Master,  faithfully  and  wisely  adminis- 
tered, certainly  should  stand  in  no  need  of  help  from  the 
state;  but  when  we  consider  how  imperfectly  discipline 
is  administered  in  our  time,  we  have  no  reason  to  wonder 
at  Calvin's  language. 

He  proceeds  to  say  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  order  of  the 
church  and  her  spiritual  tribunals  is  designed  by  the  Lord 
to  be  perpetuated  through  all  ages,  because  it  would  be 
incongruous  that  those  who  refuse  to  obey  our  admoni- 
tions should  be  turned  over  to  the  magistrate,  which 
would  be  necessary  and  suitable,  of  course,  if  he  were  to 
be  the  successor  of  the  church  rulers.  The  promise  to 
such  rulers  about  binding  and  loosing  cannot  be  limited 
to  a  few  years.  Our  Lord's  enactment  is  no  new  one.  It 
was  always  observed  in  the  church  of  his  ancient  people. 
The  church  cannot  dispense  with  a  spiritual  discipline 
which  w^as  necessary  from  the  beginning.  When  em- 
perors and  magistrates  began  to  assume  the  Christian 
name,  spiritual  jurisdiction  was  not  forthwith  abolished. 
It  was  easily  arranged  that  the  two  should  not  interfere. 
A  Christian  emperor  could  not  wish  to  exempt  himself 


278  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

from  the  common  spiritual  subjeetion.  The  Emperor 
Theodosiiis  submitted  to  discipline  by  Ambrose.  A  good 
emperor  is  within  the  church,  not  above  it,  as  said 
Ambrose. 

The  slanderous  accusation  against  Calvin,  that  he  de- 
livered over  Servetus  to  the  secular  arm  to  be  burnt,  is 
shown  to  be  false  by  the  principle  which  he  has  here 
announced. 

The  object  to  be  held  in  view  by  the  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  church  is,  first  (says  Calvin),  to  prevent  the 
occurrence  of  scandals,  but  when  they  arise,  to  remove 
them.  Here  two  things  are  needful — first,  that  this 
spiritual  power  be  altogether  distinct  from  the  power  of 
the  sword,  and,  secondly,  that  it  be  not  administered  by 
one  man,  but  by  a  lawful  consistory.  Both  these  were 
observed  in  the  purer  times  of  the  church.  The  severest 
punishment  of  the  church,  and,  as  it  were,  her  last  thun- 
derbolt, is  excommunication,  and  that  never  to  be  used 
except  in  case  of  necessity.  Moreover,  this  requires 
neither  violence  nor  j)hysical  force,  but  gets  its  power 
solely  from  the  word  of  God.  In  short,  the  jurisdiction 
Ol  the  ancient  church  was  nothing  but  a  practical  declara- 
tion of  what  Paul  says,  '"The  weapons  of  our  warfare  are 
not  carnal,  but  spiritual."  As  this  warfare  was  carried 
on  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  so  there  was  required  to 
be  connected  with  the  office  of  the  ministry  the  right  of 
summoning  those  who  are  to  be  privately  admonished  or 
sl'.arply  rebuked;  the  right,  moreover,  of  keeping  back 
from  the  Lord's  supper  those  who  could  not  be  admitted 
without  profaning  this  high  ordinance.  Hence,  Paul  inti- 
mates, in  1  Corinthians  v.  12,  the  necessity  of  tribunals 
from  the  authority  of  which  no  believer  is  exempted. 

The  power  of  these  tribunals  was  not  in  any  one  man, 
but  in  the  consistory  of  elders,  which  was,  in  the  church, 
what  a  council  is  in  the  city.  Cyprian  (A.  D.  250), 
speaking  of  these  tribunals  as  they  were  in  his  time,  asso- 
ciates the  whole  clergy  with  the  bishop  ;  in  anotlicr  place 
he  shows  that,  while  the  clergy  presided,  the  people  were 
not  excluded  from  cognizance.  Cyprian  savs,  "From  the 
beginning  of  my  bislioprie,  I  determined  to  do  nothing 
without  the  advice  of  the  clergy,  nothing  without  the  con- 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  279 

sent  of  the  people."  But  the  common  and  usual  method 
Avas  bj  the  council  of  presbyters,  of  whom,  as  I  have  said, 
there  were  two  classes.  Some  were  for  teaching,  others 
were  only  censors  of  manners.  This  institution  gradually 
degenerated  from  its  primitive  form,  so  that  in  the  time  of 
Ambrose  (A.  D.  397)  the  clergy  alone  had  cognizance  of 
ecclesiastical  causes.  Of  this  Ambrose  complains  in  the 
following  terms:  ''The  ancient  synagogue,  and  afterwards 
the  church,  had  elders  without  whose  advice  nothing  was 
done  ;  this  has  grown  obsolete,  by  whose  fault  I  know  not, 
unless  it  be  by  the  sloth,  or  rather  the  pride,  of  teachers 
who  would  have  it  seem  that  they  only  are  somewhat." 
We  see  how  indignant  this  holy  man  was  because  the  bet- 
ter state  was  in  some  degree  impaired,  and  yet  the  order 
which  then  existed  was  at  least  tolerable.  What,  then, 
had  he  seen  those  shapeless  ruins  which  exhibit  no  trace 
of  the  ancient  edifice !  How  would  he  have  lamented ! 
Chiefly  (principio)  contrary  to  what  was  right  and  law- 
ful, the  bishop  appropriated  to  himself  what  was  given 
to  the  whole  church,  just  as  if  the  consul  had  expelled  the 
senate,  and  assumed  to  himself  the  whole  empire;  for, 
as  the  bishop  is  superior  in  rank  to  the  others,  so  the  au- 
thority of  the  consistory  is  greater  than  that  of  one  in- 
dividual. It  was,  therefore,  a  gross  iniquity  when  one 
man,  transferring  the  common  power  to  himself,  paved 
the  way  for  tyrannical  license,  suppressed  and  discarded 
the  consistory  ordained  by  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

But,  as  one  evil  always  leads  to  another  evil,  the 
bishops,  now  disdaining  spiritual  jurisdiction  as  a  thing 
unworthy  of  their  care,  appoint  officials  to  manage  it  in 
their  place.  I  say  nothing  as  to  the  character  of  these 
officials.  All  I  say  is,  that  they  have  gradually  trans- 
formed the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  church  consistory 
into  a  mere  litigious  forum  for  the  settlement  of  civil 
matters ;  yet  they  will  tell  you,  we  have  admonitions, 
and  Ave  have  excommunication.  But  this  is  the  way  God 
is  mocked.  Calvin  describes  the  end  of  all  their  pro- 
ceedings, in  their  so-called  spiritual  jurisdiction,  as  the 
collection  of  money,  and  he  shows  how  money  is  the 
means  of  escape  from  all  their  so-called  spiritual  disci- 
pline.    He  adds  that  not  only  they  take  charge,  in  this 


280  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

fashion,  of  Htiij;ation  about  pecuniary  affairs,  but,  also, 
that  in  this  very  same  fashion  do  they  censure  vices,  such 
as  whoredom,  lasciviousness,  drunkenness,  and  like  in- 
iquities, Mdiich  they  not  only  tolerate,  but,  by  a  kind  of 
tacit  approbation,  through  the  reception  of  money,  en- 
courage, both  among  the  people  and  themselves.  Out  of 
many  they  summon  a  few,  that  they  might  not  seem  to 
connive  too  much  {nimis  socordes  in  connivendo),  or  that 
they  may  mulct  them  in  money.  I  say  nothing  of  the 
plunder,  rapine,  peculation  and  sacrilege  which  are  there 
ccmmitted.  I  repeat,  that  I  say  nothing  of  the  kind  of 
persons  Avho  are,  for  the  most  part,  appointed  by  the 
bishops  to  act  in  their  place.  It  is  enough,  and  more  than 
enough,  that  when  the  Romanists  boast  of  their  spiritual 
jurisdiction,  we  are  ready  to  show  that  nothing  is  more 
contrary  to  the  procedure  instituted  by  Christ;  that  it 
has  no  more  resemblance  to  ancient  practice  than  dark- 
ness has  to  light. 

The  twelfth  chapter  treats  of  the  discipline  of  the 
church,  and  its  principal  use  in  censures  and  excommuni- 
cation. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts :  I.  The  first  part  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  which  respects  the  people,  and 
is  called  common,  consists  of  two  parts :  the  former  de- 
pending on  the  power  of  the  keys,  which  is  considered, 
(Sec.  1-14)  ;  the  latter  consisting  in  the  appointment  of 
times  for  fasting  and  prayer  (Sec.  14-21).  II.  The  sec- 
ond part  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  relating  to  the  clergy 
(Sec.  22-28),  shall  be  passed  over,  as  not  relating  to  Cal- 
vin's doctrine  of  church  government,  being  peculiar  to 
the  Romish  church. 

Calvin  speaks,  first,  of  the  common  discipline,  to  which 
both  clergy  *  and  people  are  subject.  If  no  society,  even 
no  moderate  family,  can  do  without  right  discipline,  much 
more  necessary  is  it  to  the  church.  As  the  saving  doc- 
trine of  Christ  is  the  life  of  the  church,  so  his  discipline  is 
itf;  sinews,  without  which  its  members  cannot  be  kept 
together.     Therefore,  all  who  wish  to  destroy  or  impede 

*  In  liis  French  A'ersion  of  the  Institutes,  Calvin  says,  "I  use  this 
word,  although  it  is  improper." 


CALYIN^S   INSTITUTES.  281 

it;,  seek  tlie  devastation  of  the  church ;  for  this  must 
happen,  if  to  preaching  be  not  added  private  admonition, 
correction,  and  similar  methods  of  maintaining  doctrine. 
Discipline  is  a  curb  to  restrain  and  tame  those  who  war 
against  doctrine ;  or,  it  is  a  stimulus  to  arouse  the  indif- 
ferent ;  or,  it  is  a  fatherly  rod,  by  which  those  who  make  a 
grievous  lapse  are  chastised  in  mercj.  The  beginnings  of 
devastation,  which  we  see  already  (in  our  Reformed 
Church),  call  for  a  remedy.  ]*^ow  the  only  remedy  is 
this  which  Christ  enjoins  and  the  pious  have  always  had 
in  use. 

The  first  step  in  discipline  is  admonition.  If  any  one 
is  worthy  of  blame,  he  must  allow  himself  to  be  admon- 
ished, and  every  one  must  study  to  admonish  his  brother 
when  the  case  requires.  Especially  is  admonition  the 
duty  of  pastors  and  elders,  as  Paul  shows  when  he  taught 
13ublicly,  and  also  from  house  to  house,  and  then  only  felt 
that  he  was  pure  from  the  blood  of  all  men.  Thus  only 
does  doctrine  obtain  force  and  authority.  If  any  one  de- 
spises admonition,  he  is  to  be  admonished  again,  and 
that  before  witnesses.  If  he  still  does  not  yield,  the  Sav- 
iour's injunction  is  that  he  must  be  summoned  to  the  bar 
of  the  church,  which  is  the  consistory  of  elders,  and  there 
admonished  more  sharply.  If  not  then  subdued,  he  is  to 
be  debarred  from  the  society  of  believers. 

But  our  Saviour  is  not  there  speaking  of  secret  faults 
merely.  We  must,  then,  distinguish  between  private  and 
public  sins.  It  is  of  the  former,  that  is,  private  offences,, 
that  Christ  says  you  must  go  and  speak  with  thy  brother 
alone.  Of  open  sins,  that  is,  public  ones,  Paul  says  to 
Timothy,  ''Eebuke  them  before  all."  So  Paul  rebuked 
Peter  when  he  dissembled,  not  privately,  but  in  the  face 
of  the  church.  The  legitimate  course,  therefore,  will  be 
to  proceed  in  correcting  secret  faults  by  the  steps  men- 
tioned by  Christ,  and,  in  open  sins,  accompanied  with 
public  scandal,  to  proceed  at  once  to  solemn  correction  by 
the  church. 

Another  distinction  Calvin  makes  is  between  mere  de- 
linquencies and  flagrant  iniquities.  For  the  latter  a 
sharper  remedy  than  admonition  is  necessary,  as  Paul 
shows  in  the  case  of  the  incestuous  Corinthian,  who  is 


282  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

not  only  verbally  rebuked,  but  excommunicated  by  him 
as  soon  as  he  was  informed  of  his  sin. 

Let  the  reader  observe  that  Calvin  describes  Paul  as  ex- 
communicating this  man  because  his  apostleship  gave  him 
plenary  power,  but  no  such  one-man  power  belongs  to  the 
settled  church-state,  although  a  foreign  missionary,  far  re- 
moved from  any  presbyterial  authority,  can  of  right  do 
the  same. 

Calvin  continues :  "The  spiritual  jurisdiction,  which 
the  Lord  has  given  to  the  church,  is  the  best  support  to 
sound  doctrine,  the  best  foundation  of  order,  and  the  best 
bond  of  unity.  Therefore,  when  tlie  church  banishes 
from  her  communion  those  guilty  of  flagrant  iniquity,  as 
well  as  the  contumacious,  who,  when  duly  admonished  for 
lighter  faults,  hold  God  and  his  tribunal  in  contempt,  she, 
so  far  from  arrogating  anything  to  herself,  is  just  exer- 
cising a  jurisdiction  which  she  has  received  from  the 
Lord.  Moreover,  the  Lord  has  declared  that  the  just  sen- 
tence of  the  church  is  his  own  sentence,  and  that  whatever 
she  does  on  earth  is  ratified  in  heaven ;  for  it  is  by  the 
word  of  the  Lord  she  condemns,  and  by  the  word  of  the 
Lord  she  receives  back  into  favor.  Those,  I  say,  who 
trust  that  churches  can  long  stand  without  this  bond  of 
discipline  are  mistaken." 

There  are  three  ends  of  this  severe  discipline.  The 
first  is  tliat  God  may  not  be  insulted  by  the  flagitious  lives 
of  professing  Christians.  If  he  who  has  the  dispensation 
of  the  Lord's  supper  admits  to  it  any  unworthy  person 
whom  he  ought  and  is  able  to  repel,  he  is  as  guilty  of  sac- 
rilege as  if  he  had  cast  the  Lord's  body  to  the  dogs. 
Chrysostom  bitterly  inveighs  against  those  priests  who, 
from  fear  of  the  great,  dare  not  keep  any  one  back. 
^'Blood,"  says  he,  "will  be  required  at  your  hands.  .  .  . 
Let  us  not  tremble  at  fasces,  purple  or  diadems ;  our 
power  here  is  greater.  Assuredly,  I  will  sooner  give  up 
my  body  to  death,  and  allow  my  blood  to  be  shed,  tlian  be 
a  partaker  of  that  pollution."  Therefore,  lest  this  sacred 
mystery  be  profaned,  selection  is  required  in  its  adminis- 
tration, and  this  cannot  be  except  by  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  church.  A  second  end  of  discipline,  is  that  the  good 
may  not,  as  usually  happens,  be  corrupted  by  constant 


CALVIN^S  INSTITUTES.  283 

communication  with  the  wicked.  To  this  Paul  refers  in 
commanding  the  Corinthians  not  to  associate  wdth  the 
incestuous  man.  A  third  end  of  discipline  is  that  the 
sinner  may  be  ashamed.  Accordingly,  the  apostle  says 
that  he  had  delivered  the  Corinthian  to  Satan.  He  o-ives 
him  over  to  Satan,  because  the  devil  is  without  the  church, 
as  Christ  is  in  the  church.  Some  interpret  this  of  a  cer- 
tain infliction  on  the  flesh,  but  this  interpretation  seems 
to  me  most  improbable. 

These  being  the  three  ends  of  discipline,  it  remains  to 
see  in  what  way  the  church  is  to  execute  this  discipline, 
which  is  made  a  part  of  jurisdiction  {quae  in  jurisdic- 
ttone  posita  est).  (Calvin's  meaning  is  that  discipline 
depends  on  jurisdiction,  for  the  word  jurisdiction  in- 
volves judgment  and  trial,  and  these  always  must  precede 
execution.)  He  continues:  And,  first,  we  must  remem- 
ber the  distinction  already  made,  that  some  sins  are 
public,  others  are  private  or  still  more  secret  (alia  jjrivata 
vel  occuMiora).  The  public  ones  are  those  which  are  done 
not  merely  before  one  or  two  witnesses,  but  openly,  and 
to  the  oft'ence  of  the  whole  church.  Secret,  I  call  not 
those  which  are  altogether  concealed  from  men,  such  as 
those  of  hypocrites  (these  are  the  occidtiom),  but  those  of 
an  intermediate  description,  Avhicli  are  not  without  wit- 
nesses, and  which  yet  are  not  public.  The  former,  that  is, 
the  public  class,  require  not  the  steps  which  Christ  enu- 
merates, but  the  church  is  to  summon  the  offender,  and 
discipline  him  according  to  his  fault.  The  second  class, 
that  is,  the  private  or  secret  class,  come  not  before  the 
church  unless  there  is  stubbornness,  according  to  the  rule 
of  Christ,  about  not  hearing  two  or  three. 

Calvin  divides  sins  into  public  and  private,  or  secret ; 
but  it  is  evident  that  he  does  not  use  these  two  last  terms 
as  synonymous,  for  besides  the  secret  (occulta),  he  has  a 
class  of  occultiora,  which  are  the  sins  of  the  hypocrite  en- 
tirely concealed  from  men,  though  known  to  God.  He 
proceeds :  "Also,  in  taking  cognizance  of  offences,  it  is 
necessary  to  attend  to  the  distinction  between  delin- 
quencies and  flagrant  iniquities.  In  lighter  offences, 
severity  is  less  required  than  kind  and  fatherly  gentleness 
■of  rebuke,  so  as  not  to  exasperate  the  offender,  but  draw 


284  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

him  back  to  repentance.  In  flagrant  iniqnities,  a  sharper 
remedy  must  be  used.  The  offender  must,  for  a  time,  be 
denied  the  communion  of  the  supper,  until  he  gives  proof 
of  repentance.  Paul  discards  the  Corinthian  from  the 
church,  and  reprimands  the  Corinthians  for  having  borne 
with  him  so  long." 

Such  was  the  method  of  the  ancient  church:  the  fla- 
grant offender  was  debarred  the  communion  for  a  time, 
then  he  must  humble  himself  before  God,  and  testify  re- 
pentance before  the  church.  He  must  then  observe  cer- 
tain solemn  rites  as  indications  of  repentance.  Having 
thus  given  satisfaction  to  the  church,  he  was  received 
back  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  bishop  and  clergy. 
Cyprian  describes  all  this,  but  he  adds  that  the  consent  of 
the  people  was  at  the  same  time  required. 

Even  princes  submitted  to  this  discipline  in  common 
with  their  subjects ;  and  justly,  for  all  diadems  and 
sceptres  should  be  subject  to  Christ.  The  Emperor  Theo- 
dosius,  Avhen  excommunicated  by  Ambrose  for  slaughter 
at  Thessalonica,  laid  aside  all  his  royal  insigniia,  and  pub- 
licly, in  the  church,  bewailed  the  sin  into  which  others 
had  led  him,  imploring  pardon  with  groans  and  tears. 
Great  kings  must  think  it  no  disgrace  to  prostrate  them- 
selves before  the  King  of  kings,  and  to  be  censured  by  his 
church.  I  only  add  that  the  legitimate  course  in  excom- 
munication is  not  for  the  elders  to  act  by  themselves,  but 
always  with  the  knowledge  and  approbation  of  the  church. 

Calvin  goes  on  to  insist  with  Paul  (2  Corinthians  ii. 
T),  that  in  the  exercise  of  discipline,  the  use  of  modera- 
tion will  better  subserve  the  ends  of  discipline  than  undue 
severity.  He  tells  us  the  ancient  church  erred  when  they 
suspended  from  the  communion  for  three,  four  or  seven 
years,  or  even  for  life.  When  one  had  lapsed  a  second 
time,  he  was  not  admitted  to  a  second  repentance,  but 
ejected  for  life.  Sound  judgment  will  always  condemn 
this  want  of  prudence.  Here  I  rather  disapprove  the 
public  custom  than  blame  those  who  complied  with  it. 
Cyprian  fully  declares  it  was  not  with  his  own  will  he 
was  thus  over-rigorous.  Chrysostom,  who  is  somewhat 
more  severe,  still  expresses  himself  similarly.  As  for 
Augustine,  we  know  how  indulgently  he  treated  the  Do- 


Calvin's  institutes.  285 

natists,  receiving  back  any  from  schism  who  declared  their 
repentance.  It  was  because  a  contrary  method  prevailed 
that  they  were  obliged  to  give  up  their  own  judgment. 

Accordingly,  as  the  church  must  act  mildly  in  her  dis- 
cipline, and  not  with  undue  severity,  which  Paul  depre- 
cates, so  private  Christians  should  act  charitably  towards 
the  lapsed.  In  one  word,  let  us  commit  them  to  the  divine 
judgment,  rather  than  our  own,  because  when  it  seems 
good  to  him,  the  worst  are  changed  into  the  best.  For  the 
promise  of  our  Saviour,  about  binding  and  loosing,  is  not 
to  individual  persons,  but  only  to  the  church  and  her 
representatives;  moreover,  it  does  not  consign  the  ex- 
communicated to  everlasting  damnation,  but  conditions 
that  upon  their  never  repenting.  Excommunication  does 
not,  like  anathema,  doom,  and  devote  to  eternal  destruc- 
tion, but  only  forewarns  to  bring  to  repentance.  If  it 
succeeds,  reconciliation  and  restoration  to  communion  are 
ready  to  be  given.  Moreover,  anathema  is  rarely,  if  ever, 
to  be  used. 

The  reader  should  observe  that,  in  general,  Calvin 
means  by  excommunication  only  suspension  from  church 
communion,  whether  for  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time,  but 
here  he  brings  it  into  comparison  with  anathema.  At 
the  present  time  Protestants  will  broadly  distinguish  ex- 
communication, on  the  one  hand,  from  suspension,  as  well 
as^  on  the  other  hand,  from  anathema.  In  a  word,  Protes- 
tants never  anathematize. 

The  reformer  next  points  out  to  private  persons,  as  well 
as  ministers,  the  duty  of  being  patient  with  the  imper- 
fections of  church  discipline,  because  the  task  is  so  diffi- 
cult. He  quotes  from  Augustine,  that  neither  is  strict- 
ness of  discipline  to  be  neglected,  nor  the  bonds  of  society 
to  be  burst  by  intemperate  correction.  On  the  one  hand, 
that  prudence  is  to  be  used  which  our  Lord  requires,  "lest 
while  ye  gather  up  the  tares,  ye  root  up  also  the  wheat 
with  them."  On  the  other  hand,  he  who  neglects  to  ad- 
monish, accuse  and  correct  the  bad,  although  he  neither 
favors  them  nor  sins  with  them,  is  guilty  before  the  Lord ; 
then  he  concludes  from  Cyprian:  Let  a  man  mercifully 
correct  what  he  can  ;  what  he  cannot  correct,  let  him  bear 
patiently,  and  in  love  bewail  and  lament. 


286  :\rY  live  asd  tj^ikh. 

Calvin  says  Angnstine  was  luovod  to  take  these  posi- 
tions bv  the  moroseness  of  the  Donatists  in  his  time,  who, 
because  they  saw  faults  in  the  church  not  disciplined  with 
due  severity,  bitterly  inveighed  against  the  l)ishops  as 
traitors,  and  then,  by  an  impious  schism,  separated  them- 
selves from  the  flock  of  Christ.  Similar  is  the  conduct  of 
the  Anabaptists  in  the  present  day,  acknowledging  no  as- 
sembly as  a  church  of  Christ  unless,  clothed  with  angelic 
perfection,  they  overthrow,  under  pretense  of  zeal,  every- 
thing that  tends  to  edification.  Augustine  tells  us  that 
the  Uonatists,  out  of  zeal  for  their  owm  disputes,  at- 
tempted to  draw  members  of  the  church  entirely  away. 
Swollen  with  pride,  raving  with  petulance,  insidious  in 
calumny,  turbulent  in  sedition,  they  covered  themselves 
with  a  stern  severity,  that  it  might  not  be  seen  how  void 
they  w^ere  of  truth.  The  correction  of  a  brother's  fault, 
which  scripture  says  must  be  done  with  moderation,  they 
pervert  to  sacrilegious  schism  and  purposes  of  excision. 
Thus  Satan  transforms  himself  into  an  angel  of  light. 

One  thing  Augustine  specially  commends,  viz.,  that  if 
the  contagion  of  sin  has  seized  the  multitude,  strict  dis- 
cipline must  not  be  attempted  wdth  them.  That  would 
only  disturb  the  weak  good,  without  correcting  the 
wicked  proud.  Such  was  his  own  practice.  In  writing  to 
Aurelius,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  about  the  prevalence  of 
drunkenness  in  Africa,  a  vice  so  severely  condemned  in 
scripture,  he  advises  a  council  of  bishops  to  devise  some 
remedial  plans  to  be  pursued,  adding  immediately  that, 
in  his  opinion,  no  harsh  or  imperious  measures  would  suit 
the  case.  Severity  can  only  be  exercised  against  the  sins 
of  the  few.  With  a  multitude  of  offenders,  more  is  to  be 
effected  by  teaching  than  commanding,  by  admonishing 
than  threatening. 

Fasting  and  Prayer,  and  Other  Religious  Observances, 

The  appointment  of  such  days  by  pastors  is  not  strictly 
included  in  the  pow'er  of  the  keys,  but  has  prevailed  in 
the  church,  not  only  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  but 
even  from  the  times  of  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The 
apostles  follow^ed  a  course  not  new  to  the  people  of  God^ 


CALVIS'S   INSTITUTES.  287 

and  which  they  foresaw  woukl  be  useful  to  the  church. 
Whene^'er,  therefore,  a  religious  controversy  arises  which 
either  a  council  or  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  behooves  to 
decide;  whenever  a  minister  is  to  be  chosen;  in  short, 
whenever  any  matter  of  difficulty  or  great  importance  is 
under  consideration ;  on  the  other  hand,  when  manifesta- 
tions of  the  divine  anger  appears,  as  war,  pestilence  and 
famine — the  sacred  and  salutary  custom  of  pastors  ex- 
horting to  fasting  and  prayer  has  always  been  observed  in 
the  church.  Though  some  may  question  whether  fasting 
is  suited  to  the  church,  none  will  question  as  to  prayer. 
We  certainly  have,  however,  the  example  of  the  apostles 
as  to  fasting.  Very  many  regard  it  as  not  very  necessary, 
others  reject  it  altogether,  and  some  hold  that  it  tends  to 
superstition,  not  understanding  what  utility  there  can  be 
in  it.    Let  us,  therefore,  consider  the  question. 

A  holy  and  lawful  fast  has  three  ends  in  view.  The 
fiist  is  to  mortify  and  subdue  the  flesh;  the  second,  to 
prepare  for  prayer  and  meditation ;  the  third,  to  evidence 
humility  when  we  are  confessing  guilt.  The  first  of  these 
does  not  apply  so  well  to  public  fasting,  because  all  have 
not  the  necessary  constitution  nor  due  health,  and  hence 
applies  better  to  private  fasting.  The  second  and  third 
apply  both  to  the  whole  church,  and  to  each  individual; 
for  sometimes  the  Lord  smites  the  whole  nation  with  dire- 
ful calamity,  while  sometimes  it  is  confined  to  one  in- 
dividual and  his  family;  in  either  place,  it  behooves  to 
plead  guilty  and  confess  guilt.  Indeed,  the  thing  is 
properly  a  feeling  of  the  mind,  and  then  the  feeling  will 
be  externally  manifested. 

Thus,  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  to  be  ordained  to 
the  important  work  of  carrying  the  gospel  to  the  heathen, 
the  Christians  of  Antioch  observed  fasting  and  prayer 
(Acts  xiii.  3)  ;  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  elders 
in  every  church,  it  w^as  with  fasting  and  prayer  (Acts  xiv. 
23)  ;  when  Luke  says  that  Anna  served  God  day  and 
night  with  fasting  and  prayer,  he  simply  intimates  that 
in  this  way  she  trained  herself  to  assiduity  in  prayer 
(Luke  ii.  37)  ;  thus  Nehemiah,  by  fasting  and  prayer 
with  more  intense  earnestness,  prayed  to  God  for  the  de- 
liverance of  his  people  (JSTehemiah  i.  4)  ;   for  this  reason 


288  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Paul  advised  married  believers  to  abstinence  for  a  time 
(1  Corinthians  vii.  5). 

If  the  Israelitish  church,  formed  and  constituted  by 
the  Lord  himself,  made  use  of  public  fastinjo;  in  token  of 
sadness,  why  may  we  not  do  the  same  ?  It  is  indeed  an 
external  ceremony,  but,  like  all  the  ceremonies  appointed 
to  Israel  (Joel  ii.  15),  terminated  in  Christ.  I*^ay,  in  the 
jDresent  day,  it  is  an  admirable  help  to  believers  as  it 
always  was.  Accordingly,  when  our  Saviour  excuses  his 
apostles  for  not  fasting,  he  does  not  say  that  fasting  is 
abrogated,  but  only  reserves  it  for  calamitous  times,  and 
conjoins  it  with  mourning  (Matthew  ix.  35  ;  Luke  v.  34). 

But  let  us  define  what  is  fasting.  It  is  not  simply  a 
restrained  and  sparing  use  of  food,  because  a  Christian 
life  ought  always  to  be  tempered  with  frugality  and  so- 
briety. But  fasting  is  to  retrench  somewhat  from  our 
accustomed  mode  of  living  for  one  day  or  for  a  certain 
period,  and  to  perform  those  actions  of  repentance,  hu- 
miliation, thanksgiving,  intercession  and  prayer,  for  the 
sake  of  which  the  fast  was  appointed. 

But  unless  pastors  observe  the  greatest  care,  fasting 
may  give  rise  to  sundry  evils,  much  worse  than  no  fasting 
at  all.  The  first  thing  to  be  feared  is  the  encroachment 
of  superstition.  Joel  ii.  13  says,  "Rend  your  hearts,  and 
not  vour  garments."  Fastina;  is  of  no  value  in  the  siffht 
of  God  unless  accompanied  with  true  dissatisfaction  with 
sin  and  with  one's  self,  true  humiliation  and  true  grief, 
from  the  fear  of  God.  Fasting  is  only  an  inferior  help  to 
these  internal  affections.  God  abominates  nothing  more 
than  the  substitution  of  outward  signs  for  real  exercises 
of  the  heart.  Accordingly,  Isaiah  inveighs  against  the 
hypocrisy  of  the  Jews,  "Is  this  such  a  fast  as  I  have 
chosen"  (Isaiah  Iviii.  5-7).  Another  danger  to  \^tch 
against  is  the  idea  that  fasting  is  a  work  involving  merit. 
In  itself  it  is  a  thing  indifferent.  It  is  of  no  importance 
except  as  to  the  end  for  which  employed.  It  is  most  per- 
nicious to  confound  this  with  works  enjoined  by  God  as 
necessary  in  themselves.  This  Manichean  dream  Augus- 
tine severely  rebukes.  A  third  error  is  the  exacting  of 
fasting  with  greater  severity  and  rigor  as  a  principal  duty, 
and  the  extolling  of  it  with  such  encomiums  as  make  the 


Calvin's  institutes.  289 

people  think  they  have  done  something  admirable  when 
thej  have  fasted.  Therefore,  I  do  not  entirely  excuse 
some  ancient  writers  as  having  sown  seeds  of  superstition 
by  their  extravagant  praises  of  fasting ;  for,  at  that  time, 
the  superstitious  observance  of  Lent  had  general  preva- 
lence, both  the  vulgar  imagining  that  they  thereby  per- 
formed some  excellent  service  to  God,  and  the  very  pas- 
tors praising  it  as  a  holy  imitation  of  Christ.  Christ  did 
not  fast  forty  days  as  an  example  to  others,  but  to  show 
that  his  gospel  was  not  of  men,  but  had  come  from  heaven. 
Strange  that  so  many  men  of  acute  judgment  should  fall 
into  this  gross  delusion  which  so  many  clear  reasons 
refute.  1,  Christ  did  not  fast  repeatedly,  as  if  ordaining 
an  anniversary  fast,  but  only  once  as  preparing  to  pro- 
mulgate the  gospel.  2,  He  did  not  fast  after  the  manner 
of  men,  as  giving  them  an  example  for  their  imitation. 
It  was  rather  an  example  to  excite  their  admiration.  3, 
In  short,  his  fast  was  like  that  of  Moses,  when  he  received 
the  law  from  God.  The  miracle  of  Moses'  forty  days' 
fast  was  to  establish  the  law,  and  it  behooved  to  be  per- 
formed also  by  Christ,  that  the  gospel  might  not  seem 
inferior.  But  no  one  among  the  Israelites  ever  set  up 
such  a  fast  to  imitate  Moses,  nor  did  any  of  the  holy 
prophets  and  fathers  do  the  like.  It  is  only  false  zeal 
and  egregious  superstition  to  fast  forty  days  in  imita- 
tion of  Christ. 

Worse  times  followed.  To  the  absurd  zeal  of  the  com- 
mon people,  on  the  side  of  the  bishops  were  added  igno- 
rance and  rudeness,  lust  of  power  and  tyrannical  rigor. 
Impious  laws  Avere  passed,  binding  the  conscience  in 
deadly  chains.  The  eating  of  flesh  was  forbidden,  as  if 
a  man  were  contaminated  by  it.  Sacrilegious  opinions 
were  added,  one  after  another,  until  all  became  an  abyss 
of  error.  They  make  a  mock  of  God ;  for  in  the  use  of 
the  most  exquisite  delicacies  they  claim  the  praise  of  fast- 
ing. JSTever  was  there  greater  abundance  or  variety  or 
savoriness  of  food.  Meantime,  the  holiest  of  them  were 
wallowing  foully.  The  highest  worship  of  God  was  to 
abstain  from  flesh,  though  indulging  in  every  kind  of 
delicacy ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  the  greatest  impiety, 
scarcely  to  be  expiated  by  death,  if  one  should  taste  a 


290  MY  l.TFE  AND  TIMKS. 

bit  of  bacon  or  rancid  flesh  witli  liis  broad  ;  Jerome  writes 
to  l^epotian  of  these  things  in  his  day.  What  was  then 
the  fault  of  a  few  is  now  common  among  all  the  rich  : 
they  do  not  fast  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  feast  after- 
ward more  richly  and  luxuriously.  In  Sermon  I.  on 
Easter  Day,  Bernard  censures,  among  others,  princes 
also  for  longing,  during  the  time  of  Lent,  for  the  ap- 
proaching festival  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  that  they 
might  indulge  more  freely. 

The  thirteenth  chapter  treats  of  vows  and  the  miserable 
entanglements  caused  by  vowing  rashly.  This  chapter 
consists  of  two  parts:  I.  Of  vows  in  general  (Sec.  1-8). 
11.  Of  monastic  vows,  and  especially  of  the  vow  of  celi- 
bacy (Sec.  S-21),  all  of  which  will  be  passed  over. 

Calvin  begins  the  discussion  by  deploring  how  the  free 
chtirch  of  Christ,  whose  liberty  w^as  purchased  by  his 
blood,  is,  through  the  craft  of  Satan,  burdened  with  a 
cruel  tyranny,  and  almost  buried  under  a  mass  of  human 
traditions ;  but  not  the  church  only,  each  individual 
member,  tyrannized  over  by  his  own  conscience,  laying 
burdens  on  himself.  This  has  been  the  result  of  men 
undertaking  to  add,  through  vows,  stronger  obligations 
than  God  himself  had  put  upon  them.  We  have  already 
shown  (Book  IL,  Chap,  viii..  Sec.  5)  that  everything 
necessary  for  a  pious  and  holy  life  is  comprehended  in  the 
law ;  also  that  the  Lord,  the  better  to  dissuade  us  from 
devising  new  works,  included  the  whole  of  righteousness 
in  simple  obedience  to  his  will.  It  is  easy,  then,  to  see 
that  all  factitious  worship,  devised  by  us  for  the  service  of 
God,  is  not  in  the  least  degree  acceptable  to  him,  however 
pleasing  it  may  be  to  us.  In  many  texts,  God  not  only 
rejects,  but  expresses  abhorrence  of  such  worship.  Hence 
arises  the  doubt  in  regard  to  vows  which  are  made  with- 
out any  express  authority  from  the  word  of  God.  Can 
they  be  duly  made  by  Christian  men,  and  to  what  extent 
are  they  binding?  We  are  careful  what  we  promise  to- 
man, much  more  careful  should  we  be  what  vows  we  make 
to  God.  Here  superstition  has  in  all  ages  prevailed,  not 
only  with  heathen  people,  but  amongst  Christians  as  m'oII. 
I^othing  can  be  less  becoming,  but  nothing  has  been  more 
usual.     Despising  the  law  of  God,  mankind  have  burned 


Calvin's  institutes.  291 

Avith  insane  zeal  for  making  vows  according  to  any 
dreamy  notions  which  they  themselves  have  conceived. 
When  we  treat  of  vows,  therefore,  we  are  not  discussing  a 
superlluons  question. 

Three  things  must  now  be  considered.  1,  Who  is  it  to 
whom  we  make  vows  ?  2,  What  are  we  that  make  them  ? 
3,  With  what  intent  do  we  make  them  \  In  regard  to  the 
first,  we  should  consider  that  it  is  God  to  whom  we  vow, 
and  that  he  very  greatly  delights  in  our  obedience,  and  as 
much  abominates  will-worship.  We  must  not,  therefore, 
arrogate  to  ourselves  a  license  to  promise  anything  to 
God  without  his  assurance  that  it  will  please  him.  Paul's 
doctrine,  that  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin,  while  it  ex- 
tends to  matters  of  every  kind,  applies  especially  to  cases 
where  we  are  making  an  offering  to  God.  In  vows,  then, 
our  first  precaution  must  be  to  attempt  nothing  rashly; 
and  we  shall  be  safe  from  the  danger  of  rashness,  when 
we  have  God  going  before  and  dictating  from  his  word 
what  will  be  acceptable. 

The  second  point  is  that  we  measure  our  strength,  and 
consider  our  vocation,  so  as  not  to  neglect  the  blessing  of 
liberty,  which  God  has  conferred  upon  us.  For  he  who 
vows  what  is  not  within  his  means,  or  is  at  variance  with 
his  calling,  is  rash ;  while  he  wdio  contemns  the  benefi- 
cence of  God  in  giving  him  so  much  liberty,  is  ungrateful. 
Every  man  should  have  respect  to  the  measure  of  grace 
bestowed  on  him,  as  Paul  enjoins  (Romans  xii.  3 ;  1 
C^orinthians  xii.  4),  lest,  by  arrogating  too  much  to  him- 
self, he  fall  headlong.  For  example,  the  Jews,  who 
vowed  not  to  eat  or  drink  until  they  had  assassinated 
Paul,  had  no  power  over  Paul's  life.  Thus  Jephthah  suf- 
fered for  his  folly,  when,  with  precipitate  fervor,  he  made 
a  rash  vow  (Judges  xi.  30).  Of  this  class,  the  first  place 
for  insane  audacity  belongs  to  the  vow  of  celibacy  by  the 
priests,  monks  and  nuns,  ignorant  so  dreadfully  of  hu- 
man weakness. 

The  third  point  is  with  what  intention  the  vow  is 
made.  God  looks  at  the  heart ;  according  to  the  purpose 
of  the  mind,  the  same  thing  may  at  one  time  please  and  be 
acce^Dtable  to  him,  and  at  another  be  most  displeasing.  If 
you  vow  total  abstinence  from  wine,  as  of  holiness,  or  as 


292  -MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

if  it  were  sin  to  drink  it,  you  are  superstitious;  but  if 
you  have  some  end  in  view,  which  is  not  perverse,  no  one 
can  disapprove.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  there  are  four  ends 
to  which  our  vows  may  be  properly  directed  ;  two  of  these 
refer  to  the  past,  and  two  to  the  future.  To  the  past  be- 
long vows  of  thanksgiving  for  favors  received,  or  for  pun- 
ishment on  ourselves  for  faults  committed ;  vows  of 
thanksgiving,  as  Jacob's  (Genesis  xxviii.  20),  and  of 
peace  offerings  to  the  Lord,  as  of  kings  of  old,  when  going 
to  war,  if  they  were  victorious.  Thus,  also,  are  to  be 
understood  all  the  passages  in  the  Psalms  which  speak  of 
vows(Ps.  xxi.  25  ;  Ivi.  12  ;  cxvi.  14,  IS).  These  are  law- 
ful in  these  days,  as  thank-offerings  to  the  Lord  for  mercy 
received  or  desired — for  they  accord  with  the  word  of 
God.  Again,  to  the  past  refers  the  vow  of  repentance  or 
self-punishment.  A  man,  by  gluttonous  indulgence,  hav- 
ing fallen  into  iniquity,  renounces  luxuries  for  a  time, 
and  trains  himself  to  temperance,  and,  therefore,  binds 
himself  with  a  vow,  that  he  may  stand  more  firmly.  Yet 
I  do  not  lay  this  do^vn  as  a  law  for  all  who  have  similarly 
offended ;  I  merely  speak  of  what  may  be  done  if  one 
thinks  such  a  vow  could  be  useful  to  him.  Thus,  while  I 
hold  it  lawful  to  make  such  a  vow,  I,  at  the  same  time, 
consider  it  not  obligatory. 

The  vows  that  relate  to  the  future  are  either  cautions  or 
stimuli.  A  man  sometimes  sees  that  in  the  use  of  a  thing 
that  is  lawful,  he  cannot  restrain  himself,  and  so  falls  into 
evil,  and  he  cuts  off  himself  for  a  time  by  a  vow  from  the 
use  of  that  thing.  If  a  man  finds  some  bodily  ornament 
brings  him  into  peril,  and  yet  he  is  allured  by  cupidity 
to  long  for  it,  why  not  impose  a  curb  on  his  desires  by  a 
vow,  and  so  free  himself  from  danger  ?  If  one  becomes 
oblivious  or  sluggish  in  the  duties  of  piety,  why  not,  by  a 
vow,  both  awaken  his  memory  and  shake  off  his  sloth  ? 
These  are  helps  to  infirmity,  and  may  be  used  to  advan- 
tage by  the  ignorant  and  imperfect.  Hence  we  hold  that 
vows,  having  respect  to  one  of  these  four  ends,  especially 
in  external  things,  are  lawful,  provided  they  are  sup- 
ported by  the  approbation  of  God,  are  suitable  to  our 
calling,  and  are  limited  to  the  measure  of  grace  bestowed 
upon  us. 


Calvin's  institutes.  293 

We  now  see  what  view  ought  to  be  taken  of  all  vows. 
There  is  one  vow  common  to  all  believers ;  it  is  taken  at 
baptism,  confirmed  in  our  catechising  and  partaking  of 
the  Lord's  supper.  The  sacraments  are  a  kind  of  mutual 
contracts,  by  which  the  Lord  conveys  his  mercy  to  us,  and 
by  it  eternal  life ;  on  our  side,  we  vow  obedience.  The 
substance  of  the  vow  is  that  we  renounce  Satan,  and  bind 
ourselves  to  the  service  of  God.  This  vow  is  certainly 
sanctioned  by  scripture,  nay,  exacted  from  all  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  and  is  holy  and  salutary,  yet  no  man  keeps 
or  can  keep  it,  but  this  stipulation  is  included  in  the  cov- 
enant of  grace,  which  comprehends  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  spirit  of  holiness,  so  that  the  promise,  which  we 
there  make,  but  do  not  keep,  is  combined  with  entreaty 
for  pardon,  and  petition  for  assistance.  Any  one  can 
easily  estimate  the  character  of  each  single  vow  by  re- 
membering the  three  given  rules.  But  I  do  not  advise 
every  day  making  vows  that  are  holy.  I  can  give  no  pre- 
cept as  to  time  or  number,  yet,  if  any  will  take  my  advice, 
he  will  not  undertake  any  but  what  are  sober  and  tem- 
porary. If  ever  and  anon  you  launch  out  into  vows,  the 
solemnity  will  be  lost  by  the  frequency,  and  you  will  fall 
into  superstition.  If  you  bind  yourself  by  a  perpetual 
vow,  you  will  have  great  trouble  and  annoyance  in  getting 
free,  or,  worn  out  by  length  of  time,  you  will  at  length 
make, bold  to  break  it. 

Tried  by  these  rules,  what  superstitions  the  world  has 
labored  under  for  ages  past !  One  vows  that  he  will  ab- 
stain from  wine,  as  if  this  were  in  itself  an  acceptable  ser- 
vice to  God.  Another  binds  himself  to  fast,  another  to 
abstain  from  flesh  on  certain  days,  making  that  more 
holy  than  other  days.  Things  much  more  boyish  were 
vowed,  but  not  by  boys.  It  became  great  wisdom  to  make 
votive  pilgrimages  to  holy  places,  and  sometimes  to  per- 
form the  journey  on  foot,  or  with  the  body  half  naked, 
that  the  greater  merit  might  be  acquired  by  the  greater 
fatigue.  All  these  things,  tried  by  the  rules  we  have  laid 
down,  will  be  found,  not  only  empty  and  nugatory,  but 
filled  with  manifest  impiety.  Be  the  judgment  of  the  flesh 
what  it  may,  God  abhors  nothing  more  than  factitious 
worship.     To  these  are  added  pernicious  and  damnable 


294  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

notions,  hypocrites,  after  performing  such  frivolities, 
thinking  that  thej  have  acquired  no  ordinary  righteous- 
ness, placing  the  substance  of  piety  in  external  observ- 
ances, and  despising  all  others  who  appear  less  careful  in 
regard  to  them. 

Part  II. — Of  the  Sacraments. 

The  fourteenth  chapter  treats  of  the  sacraments.  This 
chapter  consists  of  two  principal  parts :  I.  Of  sacraments 
in  general.  The  sum  of  the  doctrine  stated  (Sec.  1-6). 
Two  classes  of  opponents  to  be  guarded  against,  viz., 
those  who  undervalue  the  power  of  the  sacraments,  and 
those  who  attribute  too  much  to  the  sacraments  (Sec. 
7-17).  All  these  will  be  passed  over,  the  first-named 
being  the  Anabaptists,  and  the  second  being  the  Roman- 
ists. 11.  Of  the  sacraments  in  particular,  both  of  the  Old 
and  the  'New  Testaments.  Their  scope  and  meaning 
(Sec.  18-22).  Refutation  of  those  wdio  have  either  too 
high  or  too  low  ideas  of  the  sacraments  (Sec.  23-26), 
which  will  be  passed  over. 

A  sacrament  is  an  external  sign,  by  which  the  Lord 
seals  on  our  consciences  his  promise  of  good-will  toward 
lis,  in  order  to  sustain  the  weakness  of  our  faith,  and  we, 
in  our  turn,  testify  our  piety  towards  him,  both  before 
himself,  and  before  angels  and  men. 

More  briefly,  we  may  define  it  thus :  A  testimony  of 
the  divine  favor  toward  us,  confirmed  by  an  external  sign, 
w^ith  a  corresponding  attestation  of  our  faith  towards  him. 

Both  these  definitions  agree  with  Augustine's — a  vis- 
ible sign  of  a  sacred  thing,  or  a  visible  form  of  an  invis- 
ible grace.  This  is  briefer,  but  somewhat  obscure.  I 
prefer  to  make  the  definition  fuller,  in  order  that  it  may 
be  more  plain  to  all. 

Calvin  next  explains  how  these  ordinances  come  to  be 
called  sacraments.  The  old  interpreter,  whenever  he 
wished  to  render  the  Greek  term  ivjarrjoto)^  into  Latin, 
specially  when  used  with  reference  to  divine  things,  em- 
ployed the  word  sacramentum.  Thus  in  Ephesians  i.  9, 
"Having  made  knovm  unto  us  the  mystery  {sacramen- 
tum)  of  his  will."  So,  also,  Ephesians  iii.  2  ;  Colossians 
i.  26;    1  Timothy  iii.  16.     He  was  unwilling  to  use  the 


Calvin's  institutes.  295 

word  arcanum,  lest  it  should  seem  beneath  the  magnitude 
of  the  thing  meant.  When  the  thing,  therefore,  was 
sacred  and  secret,  he  used  the  term  sacramentum.  In 
this  sense,  it  frequently  occurs  in  ecclesiastical  writers. 
Thus  it  was  that  this  term  was  applied  to  such  ordinances 
as  give  an  august  representation  of  things  spiritual  and 
sublime. 

It  follows  from  the  definition  given,  that  there  never  is 
a  sacrament  without  an  antecedent  promise  to  the  sacra- 
ment, being  an  appendage  to  confirm  the  promise  as  with 
a  seal.  In  this  way,  God  provides,  first,  for  our  ignorance 
and  sluggishness,  and,  secondly,  for  our  infirmity ;  but 
properly  speaking,  the  sacrament  does  not  confirm  his 
word,  but  only  establishes  us  in  the  faith  of  it;  for  the 
truth  of  God  is  in  itself  sufficiently  stable  and  certain. 
It  cannot  receive  confirmation  from  any  other  quarter. 
But,  as  our  faith  is  slender  and  weak,  so,  if  not  propped 
up  on  every  side  and  supported  by  all  kinds  of  means,  it 
is  forthwith  shaken,  tossed  to  and  fro,  wavers  and  even 
falls.  But  here  our  merciful  Lord,  in  his  boundless  con- 
descension, so  accommodates  himself  to  our  capacity,  that 
seeing  how,  from  our  animal  nature,  we  are  always  creep- 
ing on  the  ground,  and  cleaving  to  the  flesh,  having  no 
thought  of  what  is  spiritual,  and  not  even  forming  an  idea 
of  it,  he  declines  not,  by  means  of  these  earthly  elements, 
to  lead  us  to  himself ;  and,  even  in  the  flesh,  to  exhibit  a 
mirror  of  spiritual  blessings ;  for,  as  Chrysostom  says 
(Horn.  GO,  ad  Popiil.'),  "Were  we  incorporeal,  he  would 
give  us  these  things  in  a  naked  and  incorporeal  form. 
Xow,  because  our  souls  are  implanted  in  bodies,  he  de- 
livers spiritual  things  under  things  visible,  l^ot  that 
the  qualities,  Avhich  are  set  before  us  in  the  sacraments, 
are  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  things,  but  God  gives 
them  this  signification." 

When  we  say  the  sacrament  consists  of  the  word  and 
the  sign,  we  are  not  to  refer  to  the  word  of  consecration, 
muttered  without  meaning  and  without  faith,  but  the 
preached  word,  which  makes  us  understand  what  the 
sign  means.  Calvin  describes  the  Komish  formula  of 
consecration,  before  his  day,  as  muttered  by  the  priest 
in  Latin,  while  the  people,  without  understanding,  looked 


296  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

stiipidly  on.  'N^y,  this  was  done  for  the  express  purpose 
of  preventing  any  instruction  from  thereby  reaching  the 
people.  At  length,  superstition  rose  to  such  a  height  that 
it  was  thought  the  consecration  was  not  duly  performed 
except  in  a  low  grumble,  which  few  could  hear.  Very 
different  is  the  doctrine  of  Augustine,  who  says,  "Let  the 
word  be  added  to  the  sign,  and  it  becomes  a  sacrament." 
You  see  how  he  required  preaching  to  the  production  of 
faith.  So  the  apostle  says,  "This  is  the  word  of  faith 
Avhich  we  preach"  ( Romans  x.  8 ;  Acts  xv.  9 ;  1  Peter 
iii.  21).  And  there  is  not  the  least  doubt  as  to  what 
Christ  did,  and  commanded  us  to  do ;  nor  as  to  what  the 
apostles  followed,  and  a  purer  church  observed.  ]^ay, 
from  the  very  beginning,  whenever  God  offered  any  sign 
to  the  holy  patriarchs,  it  was  inseparably  attached  to  doc- 
trine. Therefore,  wherever  we  hear  mention  of  the  sac- 
ramental word,  let  us  understand  the  promise,  which, 
proclaimed  aloud  by  the  minister,  leads  the  people  by  the 
hand  to  that  to  which  the  sign  tends  and  directs  us. 

The  sacramental  signs  are  like  seals  aiSxed  to  diplomas, 
and  other  public  deeds ;  in  a  blank  paper  they  are  noth- 
ing, but  to  what  is  written  they  add  much.  ISTor  is  this  a 
fiction  of  our  own,  for  Paul  himself  uses  it,  terming  cir- 
cumcision a  seal  in  Romans  iv.  11,  where  he  maintains 
that  the  sacrament  of  circumcision  was  to  Abraham  an 
attestation  to  the  covenant,  by  the  faith  of  which  he  had 
been  previously  justified.  We  preach  that  the  promise 
in  the  covenant  is  sealed  by  the  sacrament,  since  it  is 
plain,  from  the  promises  themselves,  that  one  promise 
confirms  another.  Sacraments  are  the  clearest  promises, 
for  they  are  promises  pictured  to  the  eye.  But  how  can 
a  carnal  seal  confirm  a  spiritual  promise  ?  The  believer's 
faith  looks  through  the  carnal  spectacle,  and  rises  to  the 
sublime  mystery  hidden  in  the  sacraments. 

As  the  Lord  calls  his  promises  covenants  (Genesis  vi. 
18;  ix.  9;  xvii.  2),  and  sacraments  signs  of  the  cove- 
nants, so  something  similar  may  be  inferred  from  human 
covenants,  viz.,  that  the  words  give  meaning  to  the  signs. 
The  slaughter  of  a  hog  might  mean  nothing.  The  joining 
of  hands  might  mean  battle  as  well  as  friendship.  The 
use  of  sacraments  is  to  confirm  promises,  and  because  we 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  297 

are  carnal,  carnal  objects  are  used  in  our  spiritual  train- 
ing to  exhibit  and  establish  the  promise,  just  as  nurses 
lead  children  by  the  hand.  Hence  Augustine  says  a  sac- 
rament is  a  promise  exhibited  to  the  eye,  while  preaching 
sets  it  forth  to  the  ear.  There  are  other  similitudes 
which  plainly  designate  the  sacraments  as  appendages  to 
the  word.  They  may  be  called  the  pillars  of  our  faith, 
which  rest  on  the  word,  as  a  building  on  its  foundation, 
though  pillars  may  be  used  to  still  further  strengthen  it. 
Or  they  may  be  called  mirrors,  in  which  we  may  contem- 
plate the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  grace  revealed  in  his 
word. 

Calvin  now  proceeds  to  defend  the  sacraments  against 
two  classes  of  opponents — first,  the  Anabaptists,  who 
undervalue  them  (in  Sec.  Y-13),  and,  secondly,  the  Ro- 
manists (in  Sec.  14-17),  who  ascribe  to  them  a  secret 
virtue  nowhere  attributed  to  them  by  the  Lord.  All  these 
will  be  passed  over,  to  come  to  the  concluding  sections 
(18-26)  of  the  sacraments  in  particular,  both  of  the  Old 
and  ^ew  Testaments,  their  scope  and  meaning. 

Sacraments  of  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  Particular. 

ISTow,  therefore,  we  have  this  fixed  point,  regarding 
sacraments,  that  their  only  ofiice  does  not  differ  from  that 
of  the  word,  which  is  to  hold  forth  Christ  to  us,  and  the 
treasures  of  divine  grace,  which  are  in  him.  They  have 
no  inherent  virtue.  They  confer  nothing,  avail  nothing 
without  faith;  in  other  words,  we  get  nothing  else  from 
them — only  more  of  what  we  bring  to  them.  Their  only 
ofijce  is  to  attest  the  benevolence  of  the  Lord  to  us.  They 
only  avail,  as  accompanied  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  enabling 
us  to  receive  this  testimony,  as  the  vessel  which  is  not 
open  cannot  receive  the  liquid  which  is  poured  out 
upon  it. 

Sacraments,  then,  include  all  th,e  signs  God  ever  gave 
to  confirm  his  promises  to  men.  Some  of  these  have  been 
natural  objects ;  some  miracles.  Of  the  former  class 
were  the  tree  of  life  to  Adam  and  Eve;  the  rainbow 
in  the  cloud  to  ]Sroah.  There  was  no  change  in  the  things, 
but  only  a  new  character  impressed  on  them,  which  even 
at  this  day  we  behold  in  the  rainbow.     It  is  just  so  with 


298  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  bullion  turned  into  coin;  it  has  received  no  more  in- 
trinsic value,  but  legally  a  much  greater.  Of  the  second 
class,  were  the  smoking  flax  to  Abraham,  of  Gideon's 
fleece,  dewy  or  dry,  and  the  going  back  of  the  shadow  on 
Hezekiah's  dial. 

We  proceed  to  speak  of  the  ordinary  sacraments  given 
by  God  to  bring  up  his  worshippers  and  servants  in  one 
faith,  and  the  confession  of  that  faith ;  for,  as  Augustine 
says,  "In  no  name  of  religion,  true  or  false,  can  men  be 
assembled  religiously,  except  by  some  common  use  of 
visible  signs."  Thus  the  sacraments,  given  to  the  church, 
are  not  simple  signs,  but  sacred,  divine  ceremonies,  or, 
as  Chrysostom  calls  them,  "pactions  between  God  and 
men,''  to  cherish  faith  and  to  testify  their  religion. 

The  sacraments  given  to  the  Old  Testament  church 
were,  first,  circumcision,  and  then  afterwards  purifica- 
tions, sacrifices,  and  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law.  To  the 
Christian  church  were  given  only  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper.  You  may  call  the  laying  on  of  hands  a  sacra- 
ment, if  you  please,  but  certainly  it  was  not  a  sacrament 
of  the  whole  church.  'Nov/  the  only  difference  between 
the  sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  church  and  those 
of  the  iSTew  Testament  church  is,  that  the  former  pointed 
forwards  to  Christ  as  expected,  while  the  latter  pointed 
backwards  to  him  as  having  already  come  ;  for  God  never 
niade  a  promise  to  fallen  man  except  in  Christ,  and, 
therefore,  when  sacraments  remind  us  of  any  promise, 
they  must  always  remind  us  of,  and  lead  us  to,  Christ. 

Let  us  consider  singly  the  signification  of  the  Jewish 
sacraments.  First,  circumcision  set  forth  the  sinfulness 
of  our  nature;  something  which  was  to  be  cut  off.  It 
was  also  a  memorial  to  them  of  the  promise  to  Abraham 
of  a  saving  seed,  viz.,  Christ  (in  GaL  v.  16),  who  should 
bless  all  nations,  and  through  whom  they  should  recover 
all  they  had  lost  in  Adam.  Therefore,  it  was  to  them,  as 
it  had  ])een  to  Abraham,  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  by  which  they  received  certain  assurance 
that,  if  they  waited  for  the  Lord,  it  would  be  accepted  by 
God  for  righteousness.  But  in  Chapter  XVI.,  Sec.  3,  4, 
we  shall  have  better  opportunity  to  follow  up  the  com- 
parison between  circumcision  and  baptism. 


CALVIN^S  IiSrSTITUTES.  299 

Secondly,  their  washings  and  purifications  placed 
under  their  eye  the  uncleanuess  and  pollution  with  which 
they  were  naturally  contaminated,  and  promised  another 
laver,  in  which  all  their  impurities  might  be  washed 
away. 

Thirdly,  their  sacrifices  convicted  them  of  their  guilti- 
ness, and  the  necessity  of  some  satisfaction  to  divine  jus- 
tice, so  that  there  must  be  a  high  priest  between  God  and 
man,  and  a  victim  to  be  sacrificed  to  this  justice.  The 
high  priest  was  Christ,  and  he  was  himself  the  victim, 
shedding  his  ovra  blood  to  appease  divine  wrath,  and  by 
his  obedience,  which  was  perfect,  abolished  the  disobedi- 
ence of  man. 

As  to  the  Christian  sacraments,  they  still  more  clearly 
set  forth  Christ — baptism,  that  we  are  washed  and  puri- 
fied ;  the  eucharist,  that  we  are  redeemed.  Ablution  is 
figured  by  water,  satisfaction  by  blood.  Both  are  found 
in  Christ,  who,  as  John  says,  came  by  water  and  blood; 
that  is,  to  purify  and  redeem.  Of  this,  John  also  says, 
there  are  three  witnesses,  the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
the  blood ;  but  the  Spirit  is  the  chief  witness,  who  gives 
us  the  full  assurance  of  this  testimony.  And  this  sub- 
lime mystery  Avas  illustriously  displayed  on  the  cross  of 
Christ,  when  both  water  and  blood  poured  forth  from 
his  side.  Of  these  iSTew  Testament  sacraments  we  shall 
shortly  treat  at  greater  length. 

The  fifteenth  chapter  treats  of  baptism  in  two  parts. 
The  first  part  sets  before  us  the  two  ends  of  baptism  (  Sec. 
1-13).  The  second  part  may  be  reduced  to  four  heads. 
Of  the  use  of  baptism  (Sec.  14,  15).  Of  the  worthiness 
or  unworthiness  of  the  minister  (Sec.  16-18).  Of  the 
ccrruptions  by  which  this  sacrament  was  polluted  (Sec. 
19).  To  whom  reference  is  had  in  the  dispensation  (Sec. 
20-22). 

Baptism  is  the  initiatory  sign  by  which  we  are  ad- 
mitted to  the  fellowship  of  the  church.  The  two  ends  of 
baptism  (in  common  with  all  other  sacraments)  are,  first, 
that  it  may  minister  to  our  faith  in  him,  and,  secondly, 
serve  for  one  confession  of  him  before  men.  We  shall  ex- 
plain both  these  ends  in  their  order. 

First.     Baptism  contributes  to  our  faith  three  things. 


300  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

One  is,  that  it  becomes  a  sign  to  us  of  our  purification,  or, 
to  speak  more  plainly,  it  is  an  assurance  to  us  of  oiu*  for- 
giveness, and  of  our  sins  being  so  covered  and  effaced 
that  tliev  will  never  come  into  his  sight,  never  be  men- 
tioned, never  imputed ;  for  we  are  to  receive  baptism  in 
connection  with  the  promise,  ''He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved"  (Mark  xvi.  16). 

In  the  same  way,  Paul  says  Christ  loved  the  church, 
and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and 
cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word  (Eph.  v. 
25,  26) ;  the  same,  also,  is  said  in  Titus  iii.  5,  and  in  1 
Peter  iii.  21.  Baptism,  then,  is  by  no  means  the  cause  of 
salvation ;  only  the  knowledge  and  certainty  of  it  is  testi- 
fied and  seen  in  this  sacrament.  By  it  the  message  of  our 
ablution  and  sanctification  is  sealed — as  in  the  word  it  is 
announced.  The  only  purification  which  baptism  prom- 
ises is  that  which  is  effected  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Christ,  who  is  figured  by  water  from  the  resemblance 
between  washing  and  cleansing.  Who,  -then,  dare  ascribe 
to  the  water  the  cleansing  which  we  receive  from  the  blood 
of  Christ  ?  since  the  sacrament  leads  us  away  from  the 
vifcible  element  that  we  may  fix  our  minds  on  Christ 
alone. 

Calvin  has  here  in  mind  the  church  of  Rome,  which 
makes  sacraments  the  causes  of  grace,  whilst  we  regard 
them  as  only  a  means  through  faith. 

iSTor  is  baptism  bestowed  only  with  reference  to  past 
sins,  for  by  it  we  are  washed  and  purified  once  for  the 
whole  of  our  life.  It  was  from  that  error  that  some,  in 
ancient  times,  refused  to  be  received  into  the  church  by 
baptism,  until  they  should  be  drawing  their  last  breath, 
so  that  they  might  be  washed  for  all  their  past.  Ancient 
bishops  frequently  inveigh  against  this  preposterous  pre- 
caution. On  the  contrary,  as  often  as  we  fall,  after  being 
baptized,  Ave  must  recall  to  mind  that  in  our  baptism  we 
A\'ere  made  certain  and  secure  of  the  remission  of  all  our 
sins,  future,  as  well  as  past.  For  baptism,  once  truly  ad- 
ministered, cannot  be  abolished  by  subsequent  sins ;  for 
therein  was  pledged  to  us  the  purity  of  Christ,  which  is 
always  in  force,  not  to  be  destroyed  by  any  stain.  Xor 
must  we  hence  assume  a  license  of  sinning  for  the  future. 


Calvin's  institutes.  301 

Tlie  truth  we  have  just  set  forth  is  only  for  those  who, 
when  they  have  sinned,  groan,  and  are  burdened,  and  op- 
pressed, that  they  may  have  somewhat  to  support  them. 
Paul,  indeed,  says  that  Christ  is  our  propitiation  for  sins 
that  are  past  (Romans  iii.  25)  ;  hut  he  does  not  thereby 
deny  that  constant  and  perpetual  forgiveness  of  sins  is 
thereby  obtained  even  till  death.  He  only  intimates  that 
it  is  designed  by  the  Father  for  those  poor  sinners,  who, 
wounded  by  remorse  of  conscience,  sigh  for  the  physician. 
To  these  Paul  here  offers  the  mercy  of  God.  Those  who, 
from  hopes  of  impurity,  seek  a  license  for  sin,  only  pro- 
voke the  wrath  and  justice  of  God. 

A  second  contribution  by  baptism  to  our  faith  in 
Christ  is  its  showing  us  our  being  dead  with  Christ,  and 
having  new  life  in  him.  "Know  _Ye  not,"  says  the  apostle, 
in  Romans  vi.  3-6,  "that  when  baptized  into  Christ,  we 
were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore,  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  we  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life."  In  these  passages  he  shows  that 
Christ,  by  baptism,  has  made  us  partakers  of  his  death, 
ingrafting  us  into  that  death ;  for,  as  the  twig  derives 
substance  and  nourishment  from  the  root  to  which  it  is 
attached,  so  those  who  are  baptized  in  true  faith,  truly 
feel  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  in  the  mortification  of 
their  flesh  (that  is,  their  i)ld  nature),  and  the  efficacy  of 
his  resurrection  in  the  quickening  of  the  Spirit  (that  is, 
their  new-born  nature).  On  this  he  founds  his  exhorta- 
tion, that  if  we  are  Christians,  we  should  die  unto  sin, 
and  live  unto  righteousness.  In  this  same  sense,  he 
speaks  in  Colossians  ii.  12,  and  Titus  iii.  5.  In  baptism, 
we  are  promised,  first,  the  free  pardon  of  sins  and  impu- 
tation of  righteousness,  and,  secondly,  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  form  us  again  to  newness  of  life. 

The  third  advantage  which  our  faith  in  Christ  re- 
ceives from  baptism  is  its  assuring  us  not  only  that  we 
are  dead  with  Christ,  and  alive  with  Christ,  but  that  we 
are  also  so  united  to  him  as  to  be  partakers  of  all  the  good 
things  that  are  his  (omnium  ejus  honorum)  ;  for  he  con- 
secrated baj)tism  in  his  own  body,  that  he  might  have  it 
as  the  firmest  bond  of  union  and  fellowship  with  us. 
Hence  Paul  proves  us  to  be  the  sons  of  God,  from  the 


302  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

fact  that  we  put  on  Christ  hi  our  ha})tisui.  Thus  wc  sec, 
in  Christ,  the  filling  up,  or  perfecting  (coniplementuni), 
of  our  baptism,  whom,  for  this  reason,  we  call  the  proper 
object,  the  object  we  aim  at  in  baptism.  Hence  it  is  not 
strange  if  the  apostles  are  reported  to  have  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  though  they  were  commanded  to  liap- 
tize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  (Acts 
viii.  16  ;  xix,  5  ;  Matthew  xxviii.  19)  ;  for  all  the  divine 
gifts  held  forth  in  baptism  are  found  in  Christ  alone. 
And  yet  it  cannot  but  be  that  he  who  baptizes  in  the  name 
of  Christ  has  also  invoked  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the 
Spirit.  We  are  cleansed  by  his  blood,  because  our  Father 
appointed  him  Mediator  to  effect  our  reconciliation  with 
himself.  Regeneration  we  obtain  from  his  death  and 
resurrection,  only  as  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  we  are  im- 
bued with  a  new  and  spiritual  nature.  Thus,  first,  John 
baptized,  and  thus,  afterwards,  the  apostles,  by  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,  understand- 
ing by  the  term  repentance,  regeneration,  and  by  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  ablutions. 

It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  certain  that  John  received 
the  very  same  commission  that  was  afterward  given  to  the 
apostles,  because  the  doctrine  of  both  was  the  same.  Both 
baptized  unto  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  from  whom  repentance  and  remission 
proceed.  Moreover,  John  pointed  out  Christ  as  the  Lamb 
of  God,  and  what  more  could  the  apostles  add  to  that  ? 
Ancient  writers  deny  the  sameness,  as  both  Chrysostom 
and  Augustine,  but  their  opinions  cannot  shake  the  cer- 
tainty of  scripture.  Luke  asserts  that  John  preached  the 
baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins  (Luke  iii. 
3).  The  only  difference  is,  that  John  baptized  in  the 
name  of  him  who  Avas  to  come ;  the  apostles  in  the  name 
of  him  who  had  already  come  (Luke  iii.  16  ;  Acts  xix.  4). 

If  John's  baptism  never  involved  the  miraculous  gifts 
of  the  Spirit,  neither  did  the  baptisms  of  the  apostles  dur- 
ing Christ's  life-time  involve  those  gifts;  yet  they  are 
all  admitted  to  be  Christian  baptisms.  I  suppose  that  the 
thing  which  imposed  on  the  ancient  writers,  and  made 
them  deny  the  sameness  of  the  baptisms  in  question,  was 
because  they  thought  the  twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus,  who 


CALVIN^S   II^STITUTES.  303 

received  the  baptism  of  John,  were  again  baptized  by 
Panl  (Acts  xix.  3-5).  When  John  discriminates  (Matt. 
iii.  11),  it  is  not  between  his  baptism  and  Christian  bap- 
tism ;  he  merely  contrasted  his  own  person  with  that  of 
Christ,  John  baptizing  only  with  water  and  our  Lord 
with  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  in  tongues  of  fire. 
What  can  any  minister  now  say  more  than  that  he  bap- 
tizes with  water  ? 

The  things  which  we  have  said  respecting  mortifica- 
tion and  ablution,  were  adumbrated  to  Israel,  who  were, 
as  the  apostle  said,  baptized  both  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea  (1  Cor.  x.  2).  Mortification  Avas  figured  when  the 
Lord  carried  them  through  the  sea,  but  drowned  Pharaoh 
and  his  hosts.  In  this  way  he  promises  us,  and  by  a  sign, 
which  is  baptism,  shows  us  that  he  leads,  and  mightily 
delivers  us  from  our  bondage  of  sin ;  we  thus  see  our 
Pharaoh,  which  is  the  devil,  drowned,  though  he  still  tries 
to  harass  us,  as  the  Israelites  were  terrified  by  the  body 
of  Pharaoh  cast  out  upon  the  shore,  though  he  could  not 
hurt  them.  Our  adversary  still  threatens,  shows  his  arm, 
and  is  felt,  but  cannot  conquer.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
cloud  was  a  symbol  of  purification  and  ablution  (]Srum. 
ix.  18),  for  it  covered  and  protected  Israel  from  the  heat 
of  the  sun,  and  so  in  baptism,  we  perceive  that  we  are 
covered  and  protected  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  lest  the 
wrath  of  God,  that  intolerable  flame,  should  lie  upon  us. 
Thus  the  fathers,  whom  God  had  adopted  as  heirs,  w^ere 
furnished  with  both  badges. 

Some  long  ago  taught,  and  some  still  maintain,  that  by 
baptism  we  are  set  free  from  original  sin,  and  the  corrup- 
tion propagated  by  Adam  to  all  his  posterity,  and  all  re- 
stored to  the  same  holy  nature  which  he  lost  by  his  fall. 
But  these  men  understand  neither  what  is  meant  by 
original  sin,  nor  original  righteousness,  nor  the  grace  of 
baptism. 

Calvin  seems  to  refer  here  to  the  Anabaptists.  Bap- 
tism can  perform  of  itself  neither  of  these  things.  In 
Book  II.,  Chap,  i..  Sec.  8,  he  had  explained  that  original 
sin  is  the  corruption  of  our  nature  by  the  fall,  which  first 
makes  us  liable  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  then  perpetuates 
itself  in  the  conduct  of  ever^^  human  life.     He  identifies 


304  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tlie  nature,  and  the  acts  which  it  prodnces,  on  the  anthor- 
ity  of  Paul  (Romans  v.  12).  A  nature  which  produces 
only  sinful  acts  is  to  be  treated  like  a  sinful  person.  This 
corrupt  nature  is  not  to  be  removed  by  baptism,  but  con- 
tinues to  be  the  torment  of  every  believer  till  death. 

So  Calvin  continues:  ''Two  things  must  be  distinctly 
observed,  viz.,  that  we  are  vitiated  in  all  parts  of  our 
nature,  and  then,  on  account  of  this  corruption,  are  justly 
held  to  be  condemned  before  God,  who  can  tolerate  only 
purity,  innocence  and  righteousness.  And  hence  even 
infants  are  corrupt  from  their  birth,  for,  although  they 
do  not  yet  show  the  fruits  of  unrighteousness,  they  have 
its  seeds  within  them.  ISTay,  their  whole  moral  nature  is, 
as  it  were,  a  seed-bed  of  sin,  and,  therefore,  odious  and 
abominable  to  God." 

In  the  remainder  of  this  paragraph  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  words  of  Calvin  just  set  down  as  to  infants,  he 
signifies  that  such  being  the  sinful  nature  in  which  we  are 
all  born,  derived  from  our  first  father  Adam,  in  whose 
disobedience,  as  represented  by  him,  we  do  all  partake, 
and  such  the  penalty  to  which  this  sinful  nature,  and  the 
sinful  acts  which  continually  flow  from  it,  justly  expose 
us,  baptism  comes  to  every  believer  with  the  assurance 
that  of  all  these,  our  sins,  original  and  actual,  through 
faith  in  Christ,  he  has  received  full  and  entire  remission. 
It  also  assures  him  that  he  has  obtained  righteousness, 
such  righteousness  as  the  people  of  God  can  obtain  in 
this  life,  viz.,  by  imj)utation,  only  God,  in  his  mercy,  for 
Christ's  righteousness'  sake,  regarding  them  as  righteous 
and  innocent. 

Thus  this  corruption  of  nature  never  ceases  in  us,  but 
constantly  produces  new  fruits,  viz.,  the  works  of  the 
flesh,  just  as  a  burning  furnace  perpetually  sends  forth 
flame  and  sparks,  or  a  living  fountain,  waters  ;  for  concu- 
piscence never  wholly  dies  in  mankind  until,  freed  by 
death  from  the  body  of  death,  they  have  altogether  laid 
aside  their  own  nature  (Book  III.,  Chap,  iii.,  Sec. 
10-13).  Baptism  indeed  tells  us  that  our  Pharaoh  is 
drowned,  and  sin  mortified  ;  not  so,  however,  as  no  longer 
to  give  us  trouble,  but  only  so  as  not  to  have  dominion ; 
for,  as  long  as  we  live,  the  remains  of  sin  dwell  in  us,  but 


CALVIX^'s   INSTITUTES.  305 

thej  shall  neither  rule  nor  reign.  Meanwhile,  let  ns  not 
cease  to  contend  strenuonslv,  and  press  on  to  complete 
victory. 

All  this  Paul  expounds  most  clearlv  in  Romans  sixth 
and  seventh  chapters.  Because  justification  is  free  and 
accompanied  with  regeneration,  and  because  we  have  a 
pledge  of  this  regeneration  in  baptism,  believers  must 
not  let  sin  reign  in  their  members.  But,  because  of  the 
infirmitj  in  all  believers,  Paul  adds,  for  their  consolation, 
that  they  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace.  Again, 
because  there  is  danger  that  thev  might  grow  presump- 
tuous, because  they  are  not  under  the  law,  he  explains 
what  is  the  nature  of  that  abrogation,  and  what  is  the  use 
of  the  law.  He  tells  us  that  we  are  freed  from  the  rigor 
of  the  law,  in  order  that  we  might  adhere  to  Christ,  and 
that  the  office  of  the  law  is  to  convince  us  of  our  depravity, 
and  make  us  feel  our  impotence  and  wretchedness. 
Then,  to  show  the  extreme  malignity  of  our  sinful  nature, 
he  illustrates  by  its  working  even  in  a  regenerate  man, 
and  that  man  is  himself.  He,  therefore,  describes  his 
constant  struggle  with  indwelling  sin.  Hence  he  is 
forced  to  groan  and  exclaim,  "O  wretched  man  that  I  am, 
who  shall  deliver  me,"  etc.  (Romans  vii.  24).  But  lest 
the  children  of  God  should  feel  anxious  about  the  result 
of  this  dreadful  struggle,  which  they  have  to  encounter,  he 
therefore  adds,  for  their  comfort,  there  is  "now  no  condem- 
nation to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus"  (Rom.  viii.  1). 

The  second  end  of  baptism  is  to  serve  for  our  confess- 
ing him  before  men.  First,  it  is  a  mark  by  which  we 
openly  declare  that  we  wish  to  be  ranked  among  the  peo- 
ple of  God ;  secondly,  by  it  we  concur  with  all  Christians 
in  the  worship  of  one  God,  and  in  one  religion ;  in  short, 
by  it  we  publicly  assert  our  faith,  so  that  not  only  do  our 
hearts  breathe,  but  our  tongues  also,  and  all  the  members 
of  our  bodv,  in  every  w^ay  they  can,  proclaim  the  praise  of 
God. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  part  of  baptism,  which  may 
be  included  under  four  heads.  First,  as  to  the  way  in 
which  we  are  to  use  and  receive  it.  We  are  to  receive  it 
as  from  the  hand  of  its  author ;  it  is  himself  who  speaks 
to  us  by  means  of  the  sign ;   who  washes  and  purifies  us ; 


306  MY  LIFE  A]XD  TIMES. 

who  effaces  the  remembrance  of  our  faults ;  who  makes 
us  partakers  of  his  death,  destroys  the  kingdom  of  Satan, 
weakens  the  power  of  concupiscence,  nay,  makes  us  one 
with  himself,  that  being  clothed  with  him,  we  may  be 
accounted  the  children  of  God.  These  things  we  ought  to 
feel  as  truly  and  certainly  in  our  mind  as  we  see  our  body 
washed  with  water.  In  the  corporeal  we  ought  to  see  the 
spiritual.  By  this  badge  the  Lord  is  pleased  to  declare 
that  he  bestowed  all  these  things  upon  us.  I^or  does  he 
merely  feed  our  eyes  with  bare  show ;  he  effectually  per- 
forms what  he  figures. 

What  I  have  said  is  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Cornelius. 
After  first  receiving  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  he  was  bap- 
tized for  the  remission  of  sins,  not  seeking  a  fuller  for- 
giveness from  baptism,  but  a  surer  exercise  of  faith ;  nay, 
an  argument  for  assurance  from  a  pledge.  But  why  did 
Ananias  say  to  Paul  that  he  washed  away  his  sins  by 
baptism  ?  (Acts  xxii.  16).  All,  then,  that  Ananias  meant 
to  say  was,  ''Be  baptized,  Paul,  that  you  may  be  assured 
that  your  sins  are  forgiven  you;  in  baptism  the  Lord 
promises  forgiveness  of  sins ;  receive  it  and  be  secure." 
I  would  not  detract  from  the  power  of  baptism,  but  would 
add  to  the  sign  the  substance  and  the  reality.  From  this 
sacrament,  as  from  all  others,  nothing  is  to  be  gained,  ex- 
cept as  it  is  received  by  faith. 

The  second  head  is  as  to  the  worthiness  or  unworthi- 
ness  of  the  minister.  The  sacrament  being  from  the  hand 
of  God  himself,  its  dignity  neither  gains  nor  loses  by  the 
administrator,  just  as  when  a  letter  is  properly  signed  and 
sealed,  its  value  does  not  depend  on  the  hand  of  the 
messenger.  It  was  the  error  of  the  Donatists  of  old  to 
measure  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  by  the  dignity  of 
the  minister.  Such  is  the  error  of  the  Catabaptists  in  our 
day,  who  deny  that  we  are  properly  baptized,  because 
wicked  men  and  idolaters  in  the  papacy  baptized  us.  We 
Avere  initiated  not  into  the  name  of  any  man,  but  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and,  therefore,  our  baptism  was  not  of  man,  but  of  God. 
It  did  not  harm  the  Jews  that  they  were  circumcised  by 
impure  and  apostate  priests.  Tliat  did  not  nullify  the 
symbol  so  that  it  had  to  be  repeated. 


CALVIN^S  i:!JSTITUTES.  307 

Calvin  adds  that,  being  baptized  himself  in  the  Romish 
church,  he  got  the  sign  without  faith,  and  so  it  was  with 
him  for  some  years,  and  that  afterwards  when  he  got  the 
faith,  he  needed  not  the  repetition  of  the  sign. 

The  third  head  is  as  to  the  corrupt  and  the  genuine 
mode  of  baptism,  i^ot  satisfied  with  the  ordinance  ad- 
ministered according  to  the  precept  of  Christ,  the  audac- 
ity of  men  has  devised  various  corruptions  to  pollute  the 
true  consecration  of  water,  e.  g.,  the  benediction,  or  rather 
the  incantation ;  then  the  taper,  the  chrism,  the  exorcism, 
the  spittle,  and  other  follies  constituting  an  adventitious 
farrago.  How  much  better,  laying  aside  all  these  inven- 
tions of  men,  to  bring  forward  the  candidate,  and  present 
him  to  God,  the  whole  church  looking  on  as  witnesses, 
and  praying  over  him,  with  the  recitation  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  in  which  the  catechumen  has  been  in- 
structed, and  the  explanation  of  the  promises  given  in 
baptism,  and  then  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  whole  concluding  with 
prayer  and  thanksgiving.  Whether  the  person  baptized 
is  to  be  Avholly  immersed,  and  that  whether  once  or  thrice, 
or  whether  he  is  only  to  be  sprinkled  with  water,  is  not  of 
the  least  consequence.  Churches  should  be  at  liberty  to 
adopt  either,  according  to  the  diversity  of  climates,  al- 
though it  is  evident  that  the  term  baptize  means  to  im- 
merse, and  that  this  was  the  form  used  by  the  primitive 
church. 

The  fourth  head  is,  who  are  to  administer  sacraments  ? 
This  is  always  a  part  of  the  ministerial  office.  Christ 
commanded  only  apostles,  and  those  who  should  succeed 
them  to  baptize.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Lord's  supper. 
Baptism  by  laics,  when  a  minister  cannot  be  had,  dates 
back  to  early  times,  but  it  cannot  be  defended.  The 
Council  of  Carthage  (A.  D.  412)  decreed  that  women 
might  not  baptize.  As  to  children  dying  in  infancy, 
whether  baptized  or  unbaptized,  their  salvation  is  in- 
cluded in  the  promise  to  be  a  God  to  us  and  to  our  chil- 
dren. How  much  evil  has  been  caused  by  the  dogma,  ill 
expounded,  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  few 
perceive,  and  therefore  think  caution  the  less  necessary; 
for,  when  the  opinion  prevails  that  all  children  are  lost 


308  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

who  happen  not  to  he  baptized,  our  condition  becomes 
worse  than  that  of  God's  ancient  people,. as  if  his  grace 
were  more  restrained  than  under  the  law,  since  the  prom- 
ise, which  was  then  effectual  in  itself  to  confer  salvation 
before  the  eighth  daj,  would  not  now  be  effectual  without 
the  help  of  a  sign. 

What  the  custom  was  before  Augustine's  day  (A.  D. 
354-430),  we  gather  from  Tertullian  (A.  D.  200),  who 
savs  that  a  Avoman  is  not  permitted  to  speak  in  the  church, 
nor  yet  to  teach,  or  baptize,  or  offer,  that  she  may  not 
claim  to  herself  any  office  of  the  man,  not  to  say  of  the 
2)riest.  So  Epiphanius  (A.  I).  375)  upbraids  Marcian 
with  giving  women  permission  to  baptize,  and  says  that 
not  even  the  Holy  Mother  of  Christ  had  this  permission. 

The  example  of  Zipporah  (Exodus  iv.  25)  is  irrele- 
vantly quoted.  As  we  nowhere  read  that  the  command 
to  circumcise  was  specially  given  to  priests,  but  as  to 
baptism  the  words  are  plain,  being  addressed  to  ministers, 
"Go  ye,  therefore,  and  baptize,"  it  is  then  a  sin  for  wo- 
man to  baptize,  because  she  puts  asunder  what  God  has 
joined  together.  But  this  I  pass,  only  insisting  that 
Zipporah  was  not  actually  performing  any  service  to 
God,  but,  fretting  and  indignant,  she  was  just  upbraiding 
her  husband,  and  giving  offence  to  God,  and  her  whole 
procedure  was  dictated  by  passion. 

But  to  make  an  end  of  this  question,  it  is  sufficient  to 
say  that  children,  who  depart  this  life  before  baptism,  are 
not  thereby  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The 
covenant  of  God  with  parents  is  not  in  itself  weak.  Its 
power  depends  not  upon  baptism,  nor  any  accessories. 
The  sacrament  is  just  a  seal,  added  to  God's  promise, 
merely  to  confirm  our  faith  in  it.  The  children  of  be- 
lievers are  not  aliens  to  the  church,  nor  are  they  baptized 
in  order  that  they  may  thus  become  children  of  God,  but 
they  are  received  into  the  church  because,  by  virtue  of  the 
promise,  they  previously  belonged  to  the  body  of  Christ. 
Hence,  if  in  our  having  failed  to  make  use  of  the  sign, 
if  there  was  neither  sloth  nor  contempt  nor  negligence, 
we  are  safe  from  all  danger.  By  far  the  better  course, 
therefore,  is  to  pay  such  respect  to  the  ordinance  of  God 
as  not  to  seek  the  sacraments  in  any  other  quarter  than 


Calvin's  institutes.  309 

where  the  Lord  has  deposited  them.  When  we  are  not 
allowed  to  take  them  from  the  church,  the  grace  of  God 
is  not  so  inseparably  annexed  to  them  that  we  cannot  ob- 
tain it  by  faith,  according  to  his  word. 

The  sixteenth  chapter  treats  of  Picdobaptism — its  ac- 
cordance with  the  institution  of  Christ,  and  the  nature  of 
the  sign.  This  chapter  is  divided  thus :  I.  Confirmation 
of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  Psedobaptism  (Sec.  1-9). 
The  remainder  of  this  chapter,  being  refutation  of  the 
arguments  which  the  Anabaptists  urge  against  Psedobap- 
tism,  and  special  objections  of  Servetus  refuted,  will  be 
passed  over. 

In  this  age,  frenzied  spirits  (the  Anabaptists)  have 
raised  great  disturbance  in  the  church,  and  even  now  con- 
tinue to  raise  disturbance  on  account  of  Piedobaptism. 
The  ground  on  which  they  make  the  assault  is  that  Psedo- 
baptism  is  not  of  apostolic  origin,  but  devised  by  human 
j)resumption  afterwards. 

l\ow,  all  Christian  people  must  agree  that  the  right 
consideration  of  signs  does  not  lie  merely  in  the  outward 
ceremonies,  but  depends  chiefly  on  the  promise,  and  the 
spiritual  mysteries  to  typify  which  the  ceremonies  them- 
selves are  appointed.  We  must  not  stop  short  at  the  ele- 
ment and  corporeal  object,  but  look  to  the  divine  promises 
which  are  therein  offered  to  us,  and  rise  to  the  internal 
secrets  therein  represented.  It  remains,  therefore,  to  in- 
quire into  the  nature  and  efiicacy  of  baptism.  Scripture 
shows  that  it  points,  first,  to  that  cleansing  from  sin 
which  we  obtain  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and,  secondly,  to 
participation  in  his  death  and  rising,  so  that  the  flesh  is 
mortified,  and  nature  regenerated,  and  believers  have  fel- 
lowship with  Christ.  To  these  general  heads  may  be 
referred  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  about  baptism,  but 
it  must  be  added  that  pabtism  is  a  testifying  of  our 
religion  before  men. 

^nTow,  in  respect  to  the  two  signs  of  circumcision  and 
baptism  given  to  the  people  of  God,  let  us  see  in  what  they 
resemble  each  other,  and  in  what  they  differ.  When  God 
gave  circumcision  to  Abraham,  he  set  himself  before  him 
as  a  God  unto  him  and  to  his  seed,  adding  that  in  himself 
was  the  perfect  sufficiency  for  all  things,  and  that  Abra- 


810  MY  LIFE  AND  IIMES. 

ham  might  reckon  on  his  hand  as  a  fountain  of  every 
blessing.  Eternal  life  was  included  in  this  promise,  for 
so  Christ  explains  it  to  the  Jews  in  Matthew  xxii.  32, 
and  Paul  also  in  Ephesians  ii.  12,  when  showing  to  the 
Ephesians  how  great  the  deliverance  God  had  given  them 
from  their  original  heathen  state.  He  says  to  them  that 
then  they  were  aliens  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  with- 
out God  and  without  hope,  because  without  the  sign  in 
their  previous  state  of  uncircumcision.  Xow,  the  first 
access  to  God,  the  first  entrance  to  immortal  life,  is  the 
remission  of  sins.  Hence  we  see  that  circmncision  cor- 
responds to  the  promise  of  our  cleansing  in  baptism. 
Again  God  covenants  with  Abraham  that  he  is  to  walk 
before  him  and  be  perfect,  Avhere  we  plainly  see  mortifi- 
cation and  regeneration,  even  as  Moses  afterwards  calls 
on  Israel  to  circumcise  the  foreskin  of  their  hearts ;  and 
thus  is  explained  what  is  signified  by  that  carnal  circum- 
cision. We  have,  therefore,  a  spiritual  promise  given  to 
the  fathers  in  circumcision,  similar  to  that  which  is  given 
to  us  in  baptism,  since  it  figured  to  them,  both  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  the  mortification  of  the  flesh.  Be- 
sides, as  we  have  shown  that  Christ,  in  whom  both  of  these 
reside,  is  the  foundation  of  baptism,  so  must  he  also  be 
the  foundation  of  circumcision. 

Calvin's  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

I  propose  to  state  definitely  the  exact  doctrine  of  Calvin 
on  the  Lord's  supper.  He  begins  by  referring  to  our 
Lord's  saying,  in  John  vi.  51,  "I  am  the  living  bread." 
Of  the  invisible  food  we  get  from  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  the  bread  and  wine  are  signs.  The  secret  union 
with  Christ  of  the  believer  being  an  incomprehensible 
mystery,  the  signs  chosen  jto  set  it  forth  are  simple  and 
familiar,  because  such  are  adapted  to  our  capacity.  The 
object  of  this  sacrament,  then,  is  to  assure  us  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ's  body  and  blood  to  be  our  spiritual  food, 
and  God  renews  the  promise  every  time  the  cup  is  offered 
to  us. 

The  force  of  the  sacrament  is  in  the  words,  ''Take,  eat, 
this  is  my  body  and  blood  broken  and  shed  for  you."  We 
are  to  take,  because  it  is  ours ;    to  eat,  for  it  is  one  sub- 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  311 

stance  with  its  ;  and  it  was  not  for  himself,  but  for  ns, 
he  took  flesh,  and  then  sacrificed  it. 

The  sacrament,  then,  is  not  a  mere  sign  of  these  things, 
but  a  seal  to  confirm  the  promise  in  John  vi.  Christ  took 
not  the  appellation  "Bread  of  Life"  from  the  sacrament ; 
but,  as  such,  he  was  given  to  us  from  eternity  by  the 
Father ;  and,  as  such,  he  took  our  nature,  and  makes  us 
partake  of  his ;  as  such,  he  bore  our  curse,  was  made  our 
sacrifice,  and  raised  our  corruptible  flesh  to  glory  and  in- 
corruption.  In  other  words,  John  vi.  preceded,  not  fol- 
lowed, the  sacrament  which  sealed  and  confirmed  the 
promise  it  sets  forth. 

All  these  benefits  we  get  by  the  gospel,  and  still  more 
clearly  by  the  sacrament,  which  assures  us  of  what  Christ 
said,  "The  bread  which  I  Avill  give  is  my  flesh,  for  the 
life  of  the  world." 

Here,  say  some,  the  eating  is  just  believing.  It  is  in- 
deed by  faith,  but  faith  is  not  the  whole  of  it.  It  is 
rather  a  consequence  of  faith.  Just  as  "the  dwelling  of 
Christ  in  our  heart  by  faith"  is  not  simple  believing,  but 
a  consequence  of  it.  Augustine,  indeed,  well  says  that 
we  eat  'by  believing,  but  all  he  meant  was  that  the  eating 
is  not  by  the  mouth,  but  of  faith.  Only  Christ,  it  should 
be  added,  is  not  far  oft' ;  but  we  are  imited  to  him  as  mem- 
bers to  the  head. 

Others  say  we  do  have  some  kind  of  communion  with 
Christ,  but  it  is  spiritual,  and  not  of  his  flesh  and  blood ; 
whereas  he  says.  "My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,"  and  that 
we  have  no  life  unless  we  eat  that  flesh  and  drink  that 
blood. 

Here  now  is  a  mystery,  spoken  by  Christ,  to  be  felt, 
rather  than  understood,  of  which  Calvin  says  that  he 
always  feels  that  he  falls  below  the  dignity  of  it  whenever 
he  does  his  utmost  to  set  it  forth.  He  can  only  break 
forth  in  admiration  of  what  the  mind  cannot  comprehend 
nor  the  tongue  express.  What,  then,  exactly  is  this  sub- 
lime mysterv  of  which  he  proceeds  now  to  ffive  a  brief 
summary  *. 

First,  says  he,  the  sacred  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ 
is  the  eternal  fountain  of  life.  "He  was  the  Word,  and 
in  him  was  life."     ISText,  this  life  was  manifested  in  hu- 


312  MY  LIFK  A^•D  TIMES. 

man  form,  for,  as  man  had  lost  life  by  the  fall,  there  re- 
mained no  hope  of  life  for  him,  except  as  he  might  be 
restored  to  it  through  communion  with  the  Word.  It 
could  avail  us  nothing  for  life  to  be  in  the  distant  Word, 
but  if  he  comes  nigh,  and  takes  our  flesh,  and  makes  it 
vivifying  for  us — that  is,  joins  himself  to  our  flesh  and 
joins  us  to  him  bj  his  Spirit — we  may  then  hope.  "I  am 
the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven,  and  the 
bread  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  Avorld  is  my  flesh." 
Life  now  is  in  our  flesh,  and  we  can  reach  it  by  the  easiest 
access,  by  just  throwing  open  our  hearts  and  embracing 
it  by  faith ;  that  is,  by  faith  we  can  become  one  with  him, 
both  in  flesh  and  spirit,  and  enjoy  all  he  is  and  all  he  has. 
Xow  this  flesh  of  Christ  naturally  was  mortal,  just  like 
ours,  and  not  life-giving,  but  he  pervades  it  with  life  in 
order  to  transmit  it  to  us.  So  he  declares,  "As  the  Father 
hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  himself  " — meaning,  of  course,  to  the  Son  as  he 
has  become  flesh.  Thus  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  become  a 
reservoir  of  the  water  of  life,  constantly  drawn  from  by 
believers  through  faith,  and  constantly  replenished  from 
the  spring-head  of  his  Godhead.  It  is  for  this  reason  we 
must  be  in  communion  with  his  flesh,  and  be  members  of 
his  body,  of  his  flesh  and  of  his  bones.  "This,"  says  Paul, 
'*is  a  great  mystery."  He  feels  unable  to  utter  it,  and  so 
expresses  his  amazement  without  explaining  it  to  us. 

Calvin's  idea  evidently  is  that  we,  lost  and  dead  sin- 
ners, could  never  reach  the  infinite  source  of  life,  nor  he 
us,  except  in  this  one  way  of  his  coming  nigh  to  us  in 
flesh,  and  making  himself  one  with  us,  so  as  afterwards, 
in  the  same  way,  to  make  us  one  with  him,  that  is,  par- 
taking of  our  nature,  that  he  might  make  us  to  partake  of 
his.  \\e  must,  therefore,  have  communion  of  his  li:^e, 
which  is  lodged  for  us  in  the  reservoir  of  his  flesh.  Life 
comes  not  to  us  from  God,  but  from  God-man.  The  Son 
of  God  is  the  eternal  source  of  life.  But  the  difficulty  is 
for  that  life  to  reach  fallen  man.  There  is  a  legal  diffi- 
culty which  justification  removes.  But  does  there  not 
remain  a  difficulty  as  to  the  vital  connection  ?  Must  there 
not  be  some  natural  tie  of  life  betwixt  the  Redeemer  and 
his  people  ?     Such  there  clearly  was  betwixt  the  first 


Calvin's  institutes.  313 

Adam  and  his  members.  He  was  their  head,  and  they 
got  their  life  through  and  from  him.  This  was  no 
figurative  or  imaginary  tie,  but  a  real,  vital  one,  neces- 
sary to  his  being  their  representative.  And  must  there 
not  be  a  vital  union  also  between  the  second  Adam  and  his 
people  ?  ]Srow,  the  way  in  which  this  comes  about  is  that 
he  takes  our  nature  on  him,  and  then  gives  us  his  nature, 
and  so  we  become  indeed  one.  He  takes  our  flesh,  and 
gives  us  his  Spirit,  and  so  establishes  a  real  communion  of 
life  with  us  through  his  flesh  and  blood  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Thus,  he  says,  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  feed  our  souls, 
as  bread  and  wine  our  bodies,  and  these  signs  would  have 
no  aptitude  as  feeding  our  bodies  if  our  souls  were  not  fed 
by  communion  with  the  life  which  is  in  his  flesh.  And  he 
calls  on  us  now  to  let  our  faith  conceive  what  our  minds 
cannot  understand,  viz.,  that  the  Spirit  can  truly  unite 
things  separate  in  space.  By  a  sacred  communion  of  his 
flesh  and  blood,  Christ  transfuses  life  into  us  by  faith ; 
and  this  he  testifies  to  us,  and  confirms  to  us  in  the  supj^er 
through  the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit,  so  that  it  is  no  empty 
sign.  Only  believers,  therefore,  get  what  is  set  forth  in 
these  signs. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  language  of  Paul,  "The 
cup  of  blessing,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood,  and 
the  bread,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?" 
is  only  figiirative.  It  is  indeed  figurative,  but  there  is 
a  reality  figured  in  this  language.  God  does  not  deceive 
by  holding  forth  an  empty  symbol.  The  Lord  puts  the 
symbol  into  your  hand  to  assure  you  that  you  truly  par- 
take of  him. 

Passing  from  this  discussion  with  the  undervaluers  of 
the  sacrament,  to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  and  that  also  of  consubstantiation,. 
(where  he  never  minces  words  with  the  Lutherans),  we 
find  him  setting  forth  what  kind  of  presence  of  Christ 
there  is  in  the  supper,  viz.,  such  as  neither  affixes  him  to 
the  element  of  bread,  nor  encloses  him  in  bread,  nor  cir- 
cumscribes him  in  any  way,  nor  divests  him  of  his  just 
dimensions,  nor  dissevers  him  by  differences  of  place,  nor 
assigns   him    a   body  of   boundless    dimensions,  diffused. 


314  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tlirongh  heaven  cand  eartli.  There  must  be  nothing  derog- 
atory to  his  heavenly  glory,  nothing  inconsistent  v^ith  his 
true  and  real  and  proper  human  nature.  In  other  words, 
it  is  not  any  physical  presence  of  his  body  at  all,  but  only 
his  spiritual  presence  by  faith.  And  then  we  come  to  his 
grand  reiteration  of  his  inability  to  comprehend  the  great 
mystery  which  Paul  had  not  undertaken  to  explain.  "I 
will  not  be  ashamed,"  says  the  great,  because  humble, 
Genevese,  "that  it  is  too  high  a  mystery  either  for  my 
mind  to  comprehend,  or  my  words  to  express;  and,  to 
speak  more  plainly,  I  rather  feel  than  understand  it. 
The  truth  of  God,  therefore,  in  which  I  can  safely  rest,  I 
here  embrace  without  controversy.  He  declares  that 
his  flesh  is  the  meat,  his  blood  the  drink,  of  my  soul ;  I 
give  my  soul  to  him  to  be  fed  with  such  food.  In  his 
sacred  supper  he  bids  me  take,  eat  and  drink  his  body 
and  blood,  under  the  symbols  of  bread  and  wine.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  he  will  truly  give  and  I  receive."  Let  tran- 
substantiators  and  consubstantiators,  and  all  others  who 
exaggerate  the  sacraments  on  the  one  side,  and  let  Socin- 
ians  and  Eationalists,  and  all  other  depredators  of  them 
on  the  other,  say  what  they  will,  we  admire  more  than  we 
can  express  the  consummate  skill  and  masterly  power 
with  which,  with  the  Word  for  his  rule  and  the  Spirit 
his  guide,  Calvin  steered  betwixt  Scylla  and  Charybdis, 
and  framed  for  us  a  statement  of  revealed  truth  on  this 
difficult  subject,  which  makes  it  not  level  to  our  compre- 
hension, of  course,  but  yet  not  confused  or  self-contra- 
dictory. 

ISTow,  Dr.  Cunningham  says  that  (Jalvin  makes  an  effort 
in  all  this  "to  bring  out  something  like  a  real  influence 
exerted  by  Christ's  human  nature  upon  the  souls  of  be- 
lievers in  connection  with  the  dispensation  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  an  effort  which  was,  of  course,  unsuccessful,  and 
resulted  only  in  what  was  about  as  unintelligible  as  Lu- 
ther's consubstantiation.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  greatest 
blot  in  the  history  of  Calvin's  labors  as  a  public  instruc- 
tor; and  it  is  a  curious  circnmstance  that  the  influence 
which  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  efficacious  in  leading  him 
astray  in  the  matter,  was  a  quality  for  which  he  usually 
o-ets  no  credit,  viz.,  an  earnest  desire  to  preserve  unity  and 


Calvin's  institutes.  315 

harmony  among  the  different  sections  of  the  Christian 
church"  (Theol.  Reformation,  p.  240). 

ISTow  I  have  great  respect  for  William  Cunningham, 
but  more  for  John  Calvin.  I  hardly  know  any  modern 
writer  whom  I  esteem  more  highly  than  Cunningham, 
and  this  is  perhaps  the  only  blot  I  ever  discovered  upon 
any  of  his  writings. 

There  are  three  points  made  against  Calvin  in  this 
statement  by  Cunningham.  One  is  that  he  errs  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  sacrament;  another,  that  his  doctrine  is 
as  unintelligible  as  Luther's ;  and  a  third,  that  he  was  led 
into  the  error  by  a  weak  desire  for  peace  and  harmony. 
Let  us  glance  at  these  in  the  reverse  order. 

First.  As  to  the  allegation  that  Calvin  was  misled  into 
the  error  charged  by  overwhelming  anxiety  to  please  the 
Lutherans,  the  chapter  we  have  just  been  considering 
bears  us  out  in  a  denial  of  the  correctness  of  the  state- 
ment.* Calvin  did,  as  we  all  know,  earnestly  desire  to 
prevent  the  Lutherans  and  the  Zwinglians  from  separat- 
ing; but  it  is,  we  are  persuaded,  a  gratuitous  allegation 
that  this  desire  led  him  to  turn  and  twist  his  doctrine  into 
such  a  shape  as  would  please  either  party.  This  same 
statement,  in  a  milder  form.  Dr.  Hodge  makes,  saying,  in 
effect,  that  one  great  object  of  his  life  was  to  effect  a  com- 
promise between  these  parties  {Bib.  Rep.,  1848,  p.  229). 
I  have  never  fully  examined  what  evidence  there  may  be 
for  this  charge,  but  I  am  well  satisfied,  from  my  ac- 
quaintance with  his  writings,  that  it  would  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  defend  Calvin's  complete  integrity  in  the  premises, 
and  to  show  that  he  holds  strictly  and  tenaciously  to  a 
doctrine  Avhich  he  considers  to  be  written  down  in  the 
word. 

!N"ext.  As  to  the  unintelligibleness  of  the  doctrine,  I 
have  yet  to  learn  that  that  quality  is  any  absolute  proof 
that  a  doctrine  is  not  true.  If  consubstantiation,  or  if 
transubstantiation  itself  were  but  revealed  in  God's  word, 
we  could  not  object  to  their  being  mysterious.  Does  Dr. 
Cunningham  mean  to  say  that  he  finds  the  Trinity,  or  the 

*  See  the  strong,  and  even  offensive,  terms  in  which  he  speaks  of 
consubstantiation  in  Book  IV.,  cxvii.,  §§  16-19;  and  also  see  the 
language  he  uses  in  his  controversies  with  Westphal  and  Heshusius. 


316  MY  LIFK  AND  TIMES. 

hinniliation  of  the  second  Person,  or  the  omnipresence  of 
God,  or  the  connection  of  sovereignty  and  free  agency,  all 
very  easy  to  be  understood  ?  For  one,  I  see  no  self-contra- 
dictoriness  in  Calvin's  doctrine,  and  am  not  stumbled  at 
its  mystery.  We  find  mystery  al)0ve  and  beneath  and 
around  and  within  ns,  and  if  we  were  to  abandon  all  the 
mysterious  doctrines  which  are  imintelligible  to  our  weak 
comprehension,  Ave  should  just  abandon  our  whole  faith. 
The  whole  of  Christianity  moves  in  the  s]ihere  of  the 
supernatural. 

Thirdly.  As  to  the  falseness  of  this  doctrine,  which  is 
"the  only  blot  on  Calvin's  teaching,"  if  Cunningham, 
with  his  patience,  and  his  learning,  and  his  candor,  and 
fairness,  had  gone  into  a  statement  of  the  grounds  of  this 
judgment  which  he  pronounced,  there  would  liave  been 
more  satisfaction  afforded  us,  and  possibly  we  might  have 
been  convinced  by  the  great  Scotch  divine.  But  as  he  only 
affirms,  and  that  very  briefly,  of  course,  T  need  waste  no 
time  in_examining  the  point. 

Touching  the  difficulty  which  there  is  in  comprehend- 
ing Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  supper,  let  it  be  re- 
membered that  the  subject  itself  is  mysterious.  Hear  Dr. 
Charles  Hodge  on  this  point,  "The  Lord's  supper  is 
by  all  Christians  regarded  as  exhibiting,  and,  in  the  case 
of  believers,  confirming,  their  union  with  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Whatever  obscurity  rests  on  that  union  must,  in 
a  measure,  rest  on  this  sacrament.  That  union,  however, 
is  declared  to  be  'a.  great  mystery.'  It  has  always,  on  that 
account,  been  called  ^the  mystical  union.'  We  are,  there- 
fore, demanding  too  much  when  we  require  all  obscurity 
to  be  banished  from  this  subject.  If  the  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people  were  merely  moral,  arising  from 
agreement  and  syiupathy,  there  would  be  no  mystery 
about  it,  and  the  Lord's  supper,  as  the  symbol  of  that 
union,  Avould  be  a  perfectly  intelligible  ordinance.  But 
the  sacred  Scriptures  teach  us  that  our  union  with  Christ 
is  far  more  than  this.  It  is  a  vital  union — we  are  par- 
takers of  his  life,  for  it  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that 
liveth  in  us."  * 

*  Biblical  Repertory,   1848. 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  317 

Thus  Dr.  Hodge,  and  I  may  put  now  wliat  Dr.  Cun- 
ningham said  unwisely,  by  way  of  objection  to  Calvin's 
doctrine,  about  its  being  unintelligible,  with  these  wise 
and  scriptural  words  of  Dr.  Hodge,  concerning  the  im- 
possibility of  its  being  an  intelligible  ordinance,  as  sym- 
bolizing a  union,  which,  confessedly,  is  not  intelligible  to 
any  mortal  mind. 

Let  me  add  that  Dr.  Hodge  thus  states  the  points  re- 
lating to  this  union  of  Christ  and  believers,  about  which 
there  is  a  general  agreement  amongst  Christians :  1,  A 
federal  relation  by  divine  constitution.  2,  On  Christ's 
part,  a  sharing  of  our  nature.  3,  A  participation  by  us 
of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  his  indwelling  within  us.  4, 
This  union  relates  to  body  as  well  as  soul ;  our  bodies  are 
temples  of  the  Spirit,  and  even  in  the  grave  they  are  still 
united  by  the  Spirit  unto  Christ.  All  these  features  of 
the  union  are  certainly  not  a  little  unintelligible,  and  yet, 
being  revealed,  "almost  all  Christians,"  says  Dr.  Hodge, 
"believe  them.''  He  adds,  "This  union  was  always  repre- 
sented as  a  real  union,  not  merely  imaginary,  nor  simply 
moral,  nor  arising  from  the  mere  reception  of  the  benefits 
which  Christ  has  procured."  Dr.  Hodge  might  have  still 
further  added  that  this  union  is  no  mere  figure  of  speech, 
for,  of  course,  he  means  so.  And  to  make  his  statement 
fully  and  thoroughly  Calvinistic,  he  should  have  added  a 
fifth  particular  of  the  Christian  faith,  viz.,  that  we  all 
partake  of  his  flesh  and  blood  in  the  sacrament. 

Dr.  Hodge  proceeds,  in  the  article  whence  I  have  drawn 
these  statements,  to  examine : 

1.  Those  authorities  which  express  the  Swiss  views. 

2.  Those  which  present  the  views  of  Calvin. 

3.  Those  symbols  in  which  both  sides  concurred.  And 
then  in  conclusion, 

4.  He  proposes  to  analyze  and  state  their  meaning.  Let 
us  accompany  him  in  this  investigation. 

1.  The  Swiss  Confessions,  referred  to  by  Dr.  Hodge, 
are  the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  the  first  Basel  and  the 
first  Helvetic.  The  last  named  protests  against  the  rep- 
resentation that  the  Reformed  look  upon  sacraments  as 
mere  badges  of  profession,  asserting  that  they  are  also 
signs  and  means  of  grace.    It  calls  the  supper  "coena  mys- 


318  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tica,  in  which  Christ  truly  offers  his  body  and  blood,  and 
hence  himself,  to  his  people,"  bnt  says,  "The  body  and 
blood  are  not  naturally  united  with  the  bread  and  wine,  or 
locally  included  in  them  or  sensibly  there  present."  In 
''The  Sincere  Confession  of  the  Ministers  of  the  Church 
of  Zurich,"  the  supper  is  said  to  be  for  "remembrance  of 
the  body  and  blood,  devoted  and  shed  for  remission  of  our 
sins."  This  is  "by  faith,"  which  renders  them  "present, 
in  one  sense,  to  the  soul  of  the  believer."  "To  believe  is 
to  eat,  and  to  eat  is  to  believe."  "There  is  no  other  life- 
giving  food  in  the  supper  than  believers  get  elsewhere." 
"Christ's  flesh  has  done  its  work  on  earth,  no  longer  bene- 
fits on  earth,  and  is  no  longer  here."  Observe  now  that 
every  one  of  these  statements  Calvin  accepts  readily,  and 
that  they  diifer  not  at  all  from  what  he  employs.  Zwingle 
himself  is  quoted  as  saying  that  the  natural  substantial 
body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven,  and  is  not  eaten  "corporeally 
in  the  supper,  but  spiritually  only,"  and  this  is  "to  rely 
on  the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God  throusch  Christ."  Dr. 
Hodge  distinguishes,  in  a  note,  betwixt  the  doctrine  ac- 
tually held  by  Zwingle  and  the  name  Zwinglian,  which  is 
popularly  applied  to  the  Socinian  doctrine  of  the  sacra- 
ments being  mere  signs. 

2.  Let  us  pass  to  the  views  of  Calvin,  and  of  the  Confes- 
sions formed  under  his  influence.  In  stating  Calvin's 
view  of  this  matter.  Dr.  Hodge  naturally  goes  to  the  In- 
stitutes, Book  IV.,  Chap.  xvii. ;  but  he  quotes  from  sec- 
tion 10,  instead  of  from  sections  8  and  9.  The  conse- 
quence is  not  a  full  and  clear  statement,  but  an  imperfect, 
partial,  and  unsatisfactory  one.  The  reader  will  remem- 
ber that  Calvin  says  Christ  is  the  eternal  source  of  life, 
was  manifested  in  our  nature  to  restore  it  to  us  when  lost, 
and  to  bring  it  nigh  when  afar  off ;  that  his  flesh,  natur- 
ally mortal  like  ours,  was  pervaded  with  life,  in  order  to 
transmit  life  to  us,  and  is  a  reservoir  constantly  dra^\ni 
from  by  all  believers,  but  replenished  continually  from 
the  eternal  spring-head  of  his  divinity ;  that  we  must  be 
in  communion  with  this  flow  of  life  coming  down  from 
the  very  throne  of  God  itself,  or  else  have  no  life  in  us; 
that  we  must  be  members  of  his  body,  and  of  one  spirit 
with  him,  or  be  dead.     ISTow,  this  union,  Paul  savs,  is  a 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  319 

great  mystery,  and  the  great  Genevese  humbly  professes 
that  he  feels,  but  does  not  understand  it.  There  is  cer- 
tainly, however,  no  great  difficulty  in  apprehending  his 
statement  of  the  mysterious  doctrine.  Surely,  the  prince 
of  the  reformers  does  not  talk  any  unmeaning  jargon.  His 
views,  derived  directly  from  scripture,  he  puts  into  plain 
and  simple  words.  It  is  possible,  however,  of  course,  to 
misapprehend  and  to  misrepresent  him,  and  this  can 
hardly  be  avoided,  if  one  gives  only  a  partial  statement 
of  his  doctrine.  What  I  have  to  say,  therefore,  touching 
Dr.  Hodge's  account  of  Calvin's  views  is  (Hibernice) 
that  it  could  not  possibly  be  clear  or  complete,  seeing  that 
it  is  so  very  incomplete.  Undertaking  to  set  forth  the 
view  Calvin  gives  of  this  mystery,  Dr.  Hodge  unfortu- 
nately begins  near  the  close  of  Calvin's  brief  summary, 
and  the  result,  of  course,  is  that  we  have  no  intelligible 
account  of  his  doctrine. 

The  Confessions,  formed  under  C-alvin's  influence, 
which  Dr.  Hodge  refers  to,  and  from  which  he  makes 
quotations  setting  forth  the  same  views  which  he  held, 
are : 

(1)  The  Galilean,  adopted  by  Protestants  of  France  in 
1559;  (2)  the  Scotch,  adopted'in  1560;  and  ( ;] )  the  Bel- 
gic  (or  Dutch),  adopted  in  1561.  The  testimonies  of 
these  Confessions  are  all  as  direct  and  strong  as  possible 
in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  Calvin.  And  they  constitute 
the  most  important  symbols  of  the  Reformed  religion, 
representing  the  doctrines  held  by  the  French,  the  Scotch, 
and  the  Dutch  churches.  There  were  no  more  important 
sections  of  the  Keformed  than  these  three. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  refer,  just  here,  to  testimony 
from  another  most  important  quarter,  though  dating 
nearly  one  century  later.  I  refer  to  the  Westminster 
Confession,  which  is  acknowledged  at  this  day  by  untold 
numbers  of  the  descendants  and  followers  of  the  Re- 
formed. Its  language  is,  "Worthy  receivers,  outwardly 
partaking  of  the  visible  elements  in  this  sacrament,  do 
then  also  inwardly,  by  faith,  really  and  indeed,  yet  not 
carnally  and  corporally,  but  spiritually,  receive  and  feed 
upon  Christ  crucified,  and  all  the  benefits  of  his  death; 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  not  corporally  or  car- 


320  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

nally  in,  witli,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine,  yet  as  really, 
but  spiritually,  present  to  the  faith  of  believers  in  that 
ordinance  as  the  elements  themselves  are  to  their  outward 
senses." 

8.  We  come  to  those  Confessions  in  which  Zwiugiians 
and  Calvinists  agreed. 

The  first  one  referred  to  by  Dr.  Hodge  is  the  Consensus 
Tigurinus,  or  the  Agreement  of  Zurich.  It  was  published 
with  the  title  "Consent  of  Ministers  of  Zurich  and  of 
John  Calvin,  Minister  of  Geneva."  Dr.  Hodge  says  very 
truly  that  "in  these  articles  there  is  not  a  word  which  any 
of  the  evangelical  churches  of  the  present  day  would  de- 
sire to  alter"  (page  238).  But  he  also  alleges  that  Cal- 
vin's view  is  excluded  from  it  (page  251).  This  is  a 
remarkable  statement.  Let  us  recur  to  the  history  of  this 
document.  Let  it  be  observed,  first  and  foremost,  that 
there  were  no  very  great  diiferences  betwixt  the  Swiss 
churches  of  Geneva  and  Zurich,  touching  the  sacraments. 
There  were  at  this  period  (twenty  years  or  so  after  Zwin- 
gle's  death)  some  differences — the  remains  of  the  wide 
separation  betwixt  Zwingle  and  Luther.  It  was  easy  to 
exaggerate  these,  and  most  desirable  that  they  should  be 
composed.  In  1549,  therefore,  Calvin,  accompanied  by 
Beza,  goes  to  Zurich  to  confer  with  Bullinger.  He  had 
previously  written  these  articles  with  his  own  pen.  Bul- 
linger and  the  others  accept  them.  Beveridge,  the  com- 
petent translator  of  so  many  of  Calvin's  works,  describes 
the  conference  between  these  brethren  as  one  where  per- 
sonal intercourse  drew  their  hearts  together,  and  they 
found  themselves  far  better  agreed  than  was  supposed 
before,  but  he  observes,  "If  any  who  subscribed  the  agree- 
ment must  be  understood  by  so  doing  to  have  changed 
the  views  they  had  previously  entertained,  he  (Calvin) 
was  not  of  the  number,  as  there  is  not  one  of  the  articles 
Avliieh  he  had  not  maintained  in  one  or  other  of  his 
works."  He  adds  that  the  effect  of  it  was  to  convince 
many  Lutherans  how  unjust  it  was  to  say  that  the  Zwin- 
glians  held  to  no  sort  of  real  presence  at  all,  and  it  was 
confidently  expected  that  out  of  it  would  flow  the  realiza- 
tion of  Calvin's  constant  hope — a  great  Protestant  league 
on  the  basis  of  that  agreement.     In  view  of  these  facts, 


CALVIN^S   INSTITUTES.  321 

which  cannot  be  denied,  it  is  preposterous  to  say  that 
Calvin  had  left  his  own  view  of  the  sacrament  out  of  the 
Consensus.  For,  of  course,  if  he  thus  yielded  everything 
to  the  Zwing'lians,  what  hope  would  have  remained  of  his 
satisfying,  by  any  such  statement,  the  Lutheran  expecta- 
tions ?  It  is  manifest,  of  course,  that,  having  Lutherans, 
as  Avell  as  Zwinglians  to  convince,  he  could  not  have 
failed  to  insert  something  considerable  touching  the  pres- 
ence of  the  body  and  blood  in  the  sacrament.  But  I  have 
further  proof  of  this  to  offer.  In  the  midst  of  all  the 
bright  hopes  that  a  great  Protestant  union  was  about  to 
take  place,  Joachim  Westphal,  minister  of  the  Lutherans 
at  Hamburg,  a  man  unequal  to  the  discussion  of  such  a 
question,  but  scurrilous  and  virulent,  attacks  the  Con- 
sensus, and,  amongst  other  points,  makes  this  very  one 
that  Calvin  had  abandoned  his  o\vn  opinions.  For  rea- 
sons which  I  have  not  time  to  detail,  Calvin  thought  best 
to  stoop  so  far  as  to  reply  to  this  man,  and  publishes  his 
"exposition"  of  the  agreement.  And  here  he  shows,  in 
forcible  terms,  how  and  where  the  Consensus  did  set  forth 
clearly,  though  mildly,  his  peculiar  views. 

Second  in  the  class  of  Confessions  accepted  by  both 
Zwinglians  and  Calvinists,  Dr.  Hodge  has  put  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism.  He  might,  with  just  as  good  reason  pre- 
cisely, have  put  the  Gallic,  Scotch,  and  Belgic  Confes- 
sions, which  he  calls  strictly  Calvinistic,  for  they  are  no 
stronger  than  it  is  in  declaring  Calvin's  view.  The 
truth  is,  as  is  evidenced  in  the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  that 
there  was  a  substantial  harmony  between  Calvin  and  the 
Swiss,  notwithstanding  their  differences.  Calvin  would 
have  had  little  trouble,  if  what  he  aimed  at  had  been  to 
unite  Avith  himself  merely  the  Zurich  brethren.  But  his 
great  idea  was  a  grand  union  of  all  the  Protestants,  and 
the  difficulty  was  to  bring  the  extremes  to  meet.  He  stood 
in  the  true  scripture  middle  with  his  doctrine  of  the  real, 
spiritual  communion,  while  Luther  had  gone  to  one  ex- 
treme and  Zwingle  to  the  other.  But  Zwingle  is  dead. 
Most  of  the  Swiss  (see  Henry.  IT.,  p.  70)  have  already 
adopted  Calvin's  higher  views,  if,  indeed,  Zwingle  did  not 
himself  forsake  his  own  lower  ones.  Out  of  regard  to 
Zwingle,  however,  they  do  not  openly  confess  the  change 


322  MY  LIFE   A.\D  TIMES. 

as  yet.  There  is  no  proof,  however,  that  Biilliu<;cr  wa?? 
what  Dr.  llodge  represents  (page  242),  '^tlie  great  oppo- 
nent of  what  was  considered  peculiar  in  Calvin's  views." 

ISTow,  the  history  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  may  be 
given  thus:  Frederick  III.,  the  elector  of  the  Palatinate, 
after  a  very  violent  disturbance  in  his  kingdom,  created 
by  one  Tilemann  Heshuss,  a  lAitheran,  whom  Calvin  had 
severely  castigated,  had  this  catechism  drawn  up  by  Cas- 
per Olevian,  a  disciple  of  Calvin,  and  Ursinus,a  friend  of 
Melanchthon,  the  object  being  to  state  the  moderate  Cal- 
vinistic  view  of  the  real  presence,  as  against  the  Lutheran 
extreme.  There  was  no  question  raised  in  all  tlu^  agita- 
tions and  conflicts  which  gave  rise  to  this  venerable  sym- 
bol, concerning  the  reality  of  Christ's  presence  in  the 
supper,  but  only  concerning  the  mode.  Was  it  by  the 
mouth  that  Christ  was  received  in  the  supper,  or  was  it  by 
faith  ?  Heshuss  is  so  violent  that  Frederick,  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  electorate  in  the  midst  of  his  fierce  denuncia- 
tions, not  only  dismisses  him  from  office,  but  determines 
to  establish  a  rule  of  faith  on  this  question  for  his  sub- 
jects, lie  consults  Melanclithon,  who  condemns  Jleshnss, 
Luther  being  now  dead  and  gone,  and  Frederick  decides 
for  the  mild  or  Calvinistic  view,  and  resolves  to  have  the 
Palatinate  become  Reformed. 

In  these  circumstances,  he  causes  the  persons  named 
above  to  draw  up  the  celebrated  formulary,  which,  being- 
adopted  by  a  synod  at  Heidelberg,  in  1563,  and  pub- 
lished as  a  confessional  standard,  has  been  translated  into 
all  modern  tongues,  honored  with  countless  commentaries, 
and  exalted,  by  general  consent,  to  the  highest  authority 
for  the  whole  Reformed  church  {Nerin's  Mij.sf.  Pies., 
page  83). 

]Srow,  this  famous  symbol  is  perfectly  clear  in  ex- 
pressing the  peculiar  doctrine  of  Calvin.  It  says  Christ 
''feeds  and  nourishes  my  soul  to  everlasting  life  with  his 
crucified  body  and  shed  blood,  as  assuredly  as  I  receive 
from  the  minister,  and  taste  with  my  mouth,  the  bread 
and  cup  of  the  Lord  as  certain  signs  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ."  And  it  says,  ''To  eat  the  crucified  body  and 
drink  the  shed  blood  of  Christ  is  not  only  to  embrace 
with  a  believing  heart  all  the  sufferings  and  death  of 


CALVIN''s  INSTITUTES.  323 

Christ,  and  thereby  to  obtain  the  pardon  of  sin  and  life 
eternal ;  bnt  also,  besides  that,  to  become  more  and  more 
nnited  to  his  sacred  body  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells 
both  in  Christ  and  in  ns,  so  that  we,  though  Christ  is  in 
heaven  and  we  on  earth,  are,  notwithstanding,  'flesh  of  his 
flesh  and  bone  of  his  bone,'  and  that  we  live  and  are  gov- 
erned forever  by  one  Spirit,  as  members  of  the  same  body 
are  by  one  soul."  Also  that  we  are,  through  the  Spirit, 
as  ''really  partakers  of  his  true  body  and  blood,"  as  we 
receive  the  signs  by  the  mouth.  Ur sinus  also  wrote  a 
commentary  on  this  symbol,  in  which  he  expresses  in  the 
strongest  terms  Calvin's  peculiar  doctrine,  which  we  again 
call  peculiar,  inasmuch  as  it  separates  him  from  the  Luth- 
eran, and  what  is  popularly  called  the  Zwinglian  doctrine. 

liow,  this  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  the  symbol  of  the 
German  Reformed  Church,  and  has  received  also  the  en- 
dorsement of  the  Eeformed  Dutch  Church,  being  solemnly 
approved  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in  1618.  It  is  just  an- 
other Calvinistic  symbol,  though  Dr.  Hodge  chooses  to 
represent  it  as  one  of  those  where  Zwinglians  and  Cal- 
vin ists  met. 

Third  and  last  in  this  class  comes  the  second  Helvetic, 
drawn  up  by  Bullinger  after  Calvin's  death,  in  1562,  but 
not  of  public  authority  till  1566.  The  Elector,  Frederick 
III.,  anxious  to  meet  the  extreme  intolerance  of  the  Luth- 
erans at  this  time  against  all  the  Reformed,  but  him  and 
his  subjects  particularly,  and  desirous  to  make,  at  the 
imperial  diet,  which  was  at  hand,  as  fair  a  showing  as  he 
could  for  the  side  he  has  espoused,  writes  to  Bullinger  for 
some  such  statement  as  might  serve  to  repress  the  cavils  of 
the  Lutherans.  Bullinger  sent  to  him  this  formulary, 
which,  to  give  it  more  authority,  was  subjected  to  the 
other  Helvetic,  or  Swiss  churches,  and  being  generally 
approved,  it  comes  to  be  kno^^^l  as  the  proper  Swiss  Con- 
fession. jSTow,  as  Bullinger  wrote  this  symbol.  Dr.  Hodge 
says,  of  course,  we  must  expect  to  find  in  it  nothing  but 
what  the  Zurich  ministers  could  cordially  adopt,  seeing 
that  Bullinger  was  Zwingle's  successor  at  Zurich,  and  the 
"great  opponent  of  Calvin's  peculiar  view!"  (Pages  242 
and  250.) 

Referring,  tlieii,  to  the  second  Helvetic,  we  find  it  full 


324  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

and  clear  in  the  statement  of  Calvin's  peculiar  doctrin(\ 
albeit  written,  as  Dr.  Hodge  says,  by  the  chief  opponent 
of  it !  It  says,  "Believers  receive  what  is  given  by  the 
minister  of  the  Lord,  and  eat  the  Lord's  bread  and.  drink 
of  the  Lord's  cnp ;  inwardly,  however,  in  the  meantime, 
by  the  work  of  Christ,  throngh  the  Holy  Spirit,  they 
partake  also  of  the  Lord's  flesh  and  blood,  and  are  fed  by 
these  unto  eternal  life.  For  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  true  meat  and  drink  unto  eternal  life,  and  Christ 
himself,  as  delivered  up  for  us  and  our  salvation,  is  that 
which  mainly  makes  the  supper,"  etc.  It  proceeds  to  ex- 
plain what  it  calls  spiritual  manducation,  which  is  not 
*'of  a  merely  imaginary,  undefinable  food,  but  the  body 
of  the  Lord  itself  delivered  up  for  us,  which,  however,  is 
received  bv  believers,  not  corporally,  but  spiritually  by 
faith." 

I  have  gone  far  enough  with  Dr.  Hodge,  and  the  re- 
marks which  he  offers  on  all  these  various  Confessions 
are,  in  my  judgment,  so  confused  and  erroneous  that  I 
pass  them  over  in  silence,  except  to  say,  merely,  that  what- 
ever objections  he  makes  to  Calvin's  doctrine,  he  never 
once  signifies  that  it  is  not  possible  to  be  understood,  or 
that  he  does  not  understand  it.  And  thus  I  set  him  over 
against  Dr.  Cunningham  on  this  point,  and  flatter  myself 
that  I  can  knock  down  the  Scotch  theologian  with  his 
American  brother.  I  may  also  refer  to  Schleierraacher, 
confessedly  a  great  master  of  ratiocination,  as  professing 
that  he  saw  nothing  absurd  in  the  Calvinistic  theory.  I 
may  refer  to  another  great  master  of  it — Dr.  R.  J.  Breck- 
inridge— as  testifying  strongly  (Subjective  Theology,  pp. 
nOG,  007)  to  the  consistency  and  scripturalness  of  the 
same  doctrine.  I  may  also  speak  of  the  celebrated  Walter 
Marshall,  one  of  the  Puritan  ministers  ejected  in  1662 
for  non-conforming,  whose  treatise  on  "The  Gospel  Mys- 
tery of  Sanctification"  was  so  strongly  recommended  by 
the  Erskines  and  by  Adam  Gib,  and  is  so  highly  esteemed 
amongst  Calvinists,  as  setting  forth,  in  the  fullest  and 
strongest  manner,  this  same  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  supper. 

I  can  also  give  my  personal  testimony  to  Dr.  Thorn- 
well's  having  averred  that  he  agreed  with  Calvin's  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  supper. 


CALVIX^S   INSTITUTES.  325 

So,  too,  one  shall  find,  in  various  portions  of  John 
Owen's  works,  that  prince  of  theologians,  very  clear  and 
forcible  statements  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  Calvin.  (See 
his  Sacramental  Discourses,  10,  23,  25.) 

And  I  can  refer,  on  the  other  hand,  to  passages  in  the 
works  of  modern  theologians,  of  more  or  less  repute,  for 
soundness  in  the  faith,  who  have  evidently  fallen  away 
very  much  from  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per— as  Edwards,  Ridgley,  Hopkins,  Bellamy,  Dwiglit, 
Ashbel  Green,  Dick,  and  Barnes.  The  tendencies  of  the 
age,  especially  in  [ISTew  England,  are  rationalistic,  and 
even  Presbyterians  are  often  too  much  inclined  to  suffer 
a  disparagement  of  the  supernatural. 

Becurring,  however,  to  the  facts  brought  to  view  in  this 
chapter,  the  reader  perceives  that,  whereas  Luther,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  Zwingle  on  the  other,  were  wide  apart,  and 
the  former  especially  obstinate  and  virulent,  as  well  as 
extreme,  yet  the  successors  of  Zwingle  were  never  far 
apart  from  Calvin ;  and  that,  accordingly,  the  first  Hel- 
vetic Confession  itself  (which  Dr.  Hodge  counts  as  anti- 
Calvinist,  that  is,  Zwinglian)  uses  language  which  contra- 
dicts his  representation  of  it,  while  the  Gallic,  Scotch, 
and  Belgic  Confessions,  the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  the  second  Helvetic  Confes- 
sion— all  of  them — are  decidedly  Calvinistic  in  their  ut- 
terances. And  he  will  not  forget  that  the  great  Genevese 
reformer  (great  because  humble)  only  undertakes  to  set 
before  us,  what  he  does  not  claim  to  comprehend,  the  sub- 
lime mystery  revealed  in  the  word  of  God.  It  seems  to 
follow  that,  in  accepting  his  views,  we  are  not  only  follow- 
ing in  the  footsteps  of  the  flock,  not  only  accepting  the 
creed  of  the  Beformed  churches — which  we  believe  to  be 
right  and  true  on  so  many  other  points  where  other 
churches  w^ander — but  we  shall  be  accepting,  also,  the  very 
word  of  God  upon  the  ineffable  mystery  of  the  union  of 
the  Head  and  the  members.  Calvin  insists  on  nothing 
whatever  except  the  sublime  truth  of  life  for  us  in  the 
incarnation.  There  is  life,  of  course,  in  the  God  absolute; 
it  is  infinite  and  superabounding  and  everlasting,  but  not 
for  us.  We  are  creatures,  and  cannot  get  access  to  it ;  we 
are  sinners,  and  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  receive  it,  if  we 


326  :S\Y  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

could  come  near  to  it.  And  so  that  life  of  the  absolute 
God  is  to  us  as  though  it  were  not ;  nay,  it  is  against  our 
life,  and  dooms  us  to  death  forever.  But  the  incarnation 
is  a  wondrous  divine  plan,  which  procures  for  us  justifica- 
tion, and  a  share  in  the  life  of  God's  own  Son.  But  the 
life  which  it  procures  is  inseparable  from  itself.  Not 
God's  Son,  as  such,  gives  it  to  us,  but  God's  Son  as  he  is  in 
human  flesh.  He  is  not  only  our  representative  Head, 
but  we  are  likewise  vitally  one  with  him.  He  partakes  of 
our  flesh,  and  we  partake  of  his  Spirit.  His  humanity  is 
the  connecting  link  between  his  Godhead  and  our  man- 
hood. The  flesh  of  Christ  is  a  reservoir,  full  of  life,  con- 
stantly drawn  upon  by  all  his  people  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  by  faith,  which  unites  us  to  the  Saviour ;  and 
this  reservoir  is  itself  constantly  replenished  from  the 
everlasting  spring-head. 

Now,  then,  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  supper  sim- 
ply is,  that  it  holds  forth  and  seals  to  us  this  most  blessed 
truth.  Does  the  reader  see  any  heresy  here  ?  Does  he  see 
any  absurdity  ?  Does  he  see  anything  he  cannot  or  ought 
not  to  accept  ?  Our  Reformed  fathers  in  France,  in  Hol- 
land, in  Scotland,  in  Switzerland,  in  Germany,  accepted 
it.  They  were  not  tinctured  in  the  slightest  degree  with 
the  rationalism  of  this  age,  and  they  accepted  it,  as  they 
perceived  it  in  the  word.  The  whole  Reformation,  except- 
ing only  the  Lutherans  (and  not  excepting  all  of  them 
either, for  Melanchthon  believed  with  (^alvin) — the  wlioh' 
Reformation,  excepting  Luther  and  his  especial  followers, 
accepted  the  same  doctrine  with  Calvin,  and  we  may 
safely  do  the  same. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Reminiscences  of  the  Wak  Between  the  States. 

THE  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  which  met  at  Roch- 
ester, N.  Y.,  was  no  sooner  dissolved  than  I  accepted, 
with  my  wife,  an  invitation  to  revisit  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breck- 
inridge, at  his  country-seat  of  Breadalbane,  some  ten  or  a 
dozen  miles  from  Lexington,  Ky.  The  prospective  seces- 
sion of  South  Carolina  would,  of  course,  come  up  in  our 
conversations.  "So  South  Carolina  is  going  to  secede," 
he  said  to  me.  I  said,  "It  seems  to  be  pretty  well  as- 
sured." He  then  said,  ''And  what  stand  do  you  think 
Kentucky  will  take  ?"  My  reply  was,  "I  would  rather 
hear  your  opinion."  He  answered,  "She  will  stand  by 
South  Carolina."  I  laid  my  hand  on  his  knee,  and  said, 
"I  am  thankful  to  hear  you  say  that."  But  Kentucky  did 
not  assume  that  attitude,  and  when,  subsequently,  I  re- 
minded him  of  what  he  had  said,  his  reply  was,  "Oh !  I 
did  not  expect  Kentucky  would  allow  herself  to  be  drag- 
ged at  the  tail  of  South  Carolina."  Either  I  had  mis- 
understood what  he  said,  or  else  he  had  changed  his 
ground.  I  still  possess  a  letter  from  him,  which  proved 
to  be  a  literal  ])rophecy  in  extenso  of  the  results  of  the 
war. 

The  election  of  a  sectional  president  was  what  actually 
determined  secession  of  the  South.  That  converted  many 
most  earnest  opponents.  Other  multitudes  had  not  fa- 
vored it,  but  held  their  first  allegiance  due  to  the  State, 
and  not  to  the  Union.  In  this  way.  South  Carolina  be- 
came practically  a  unit.  Indeed,  Woodrow  Wilson,  speak- 
ing of  the  whole  South,  says  that  she  "had  avowedly 
staked  everything,  even  her  allegiance  to  the  Union,  upon 
this  election.  She  knew  that  the  party,  which  was  hotly 
intolerant  of  the  whole  body  of  Southern  institutions  and 
interests,  had  triumphed  in  the  elections,  and  was  about 
to  take  possession  of  the  government,  and  that  it  was 


328  MY  LIFE  AN])  TIMKS. 

niorallv  impossible  to  preserve  the  Union  any  longer.  'If 
yon  wlio  represent  the  stronger  ])ortion/  (Jalhomi  had 
said  in  1850,  in  words  which  perfectly  convey  this  feeling 
in  their  quiet  cadences,  'cannot  agree  to  settle  the  great 
questions  at  issue  on  the  broad  principle  of  justice  and 
duty,  say  so ;  and  let  the  States  we  both  represent  agree 
to  separate,  and  depart  in  peace.'  "  The  South  had  long, 
but  vainly,  waited  for  the  North's  acceptance  of  this 
celebrated  and  most  just  proposal. 

When  news  came  that  Lincoln  was  elected,  therefore, 
the  South  Carolina  Legislature  called  a  State  convention. 
This  convention  met  in  Charleston  on  the  20th  of  Decem- 
ber, and  passed,  unanimously,  the  ordinance  of  secession, 
and  made  provision  for  the  government  of  the  State  as  a 
sej^arate  sovereignty,  and  for  such  exigencies  of  defence 
as  might  arise  in  case  of  war.  By  the  first  of  February, 
Georgia  and  four  of  the  Gulf  States — Florida,  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  and  Louisiana — had  followed  South  Caro- 
lina, and  seceded  from  the  TTuiou  ;  and  Texas  Avas  on  the 
point  of  joining  them. 

Delegates,  appointed  by  the  several  conventions  in  the 
seceding  States,  met  in  Montgomery,  Ala.,  on  the  4th  of 
February,  1861,  framed  a  provisional  constitution  and 
government  for  the  "Confederate  States  of  America," 
chose  flefferson  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  provisional  Presi- 
dent, and  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  provisional 
Vice-President.  In  March,  a  permanent  constitution  was 
adopted,  to  take  effect  the  next  year. 

While  the  South  thus  showed  herself  in  earnest,  the 
country  at  large  seemed  to  be  bewildered.  The  adminis- 
tration was  paralyzed.  The  States  of  the  Xorth,  as  Wood- 
row  Wilson  well  expresses  it,  ''had  not  awakened  to  the 
national  idea.  The  Federal  authorities  did  nothing.  Al- 
most everywhere,  in  the  North  and  West,  the  people  were 
strangely  lethargic,  singularly  disposed  to  wait  and  see 
the  trouble  Idow  over."  The  masses  had  not  been  watch- 
ing the  progress  of  public  affairs,  and  when  the  great 
crisis  came,  it  took  them  by  surprise.  Probably  neither 
side  expected  an  actual  conflict  of  arms,  and  even  in  the 
South  many  did  not  look  for  a  permanent  dissolution  of 
the  Union.     Some  believed  that  if  war  came  it  would  not 


REMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAR.  329 

last  three  months.  It  was  said  that  C^olonel  Chesniit, 
ex-member  of  Congress,  held  that  it  would  all  be  arranged, 
and  that  he  even  offered  to  drink  all  the  blood  that  was 
q;oing  to  be  shed. 

Shortly  after  the  eventful  20th  of  December,  the  people 
of  Charleston  awakened  one  morning  to  the  startling  news 
that  jMajor  Anderson,  who  commanded  the  United  States 
garrison  at  Fort  Moultrie,  had  transferred  his  company  to 
the  much  stronger  fortress  of  Sumter.     There  was  great 
significance  in  the  move,  for,  no  doubt,  orders  had  come 
to  him  to  this  effect  from  Washington.    The  United  States 
flag  floated  for  a  long  time  j)eacefully  there.     But,  to 
many  an  eye  in  the  city,  and  to  many  a  heart  in  the  State, 
it  seemed  to  say  that  South  Carolina  was  not  yet  out  of 
the  Union.    President  Buchanan  was  known  to  be  a  weak 
man,  but  he  had  always  seemed  favorable  to  the  South. 
He  held,  as  did  also  his  Attorney-General,  that  there  was 
no  constitutional  means  or  warrant  for  coercing  a  State 
to  do  her  duty  under  the  law.     When  Southern  members 
retired  from  his  Cabinet,  naturally  they  were  rej)laced  by 
men  of  the  l^orth.     xVfter  some  time  Messrs.  James  L. 
Orr  and  Robert  W.  Barnwell  were  sent  on  as  commission- 
ers to  treat  with  President  Buchanan  as  to  the  transfer  of 
the  national  property  lying  within  the  State,  and  espe- 
cially as  to  the  cession  to  South  Carolina  of  the  forts 
within  her  harbor.      They  presented  themselves  before 
the  President,  and  he  professed  to  be  willing  to  give  them 
official  recognition,   and  accordingly  so  promised.      But 
this  promise  was  not  to  be  fulfilled.     As  often  as  the 
South  Carolina  commissioners  waited  on  the  President 
to  have  his  promises  fulfilled,  he  would  put  them  off,  ou 
one  pretext  or  another.     Meanwhile,  as  was  believed  in 
South   Carolina,   the   Federal  government  was  gaining 
time   for   the   sending   of   a   fleet   to    Charleston.      The 
South  C^arolina  commissioners  continued  to  call  on  the 
President  and  demand  to  be  recognized,  and  whenever  he 
would  try  to  put  them  off,  Mr.  Barnwell  would  say,  ^'But, 
Mr.  President,  you  have  promised."     This  he  could  not 
deny,  but  he  dared  not  fulfil  it.     On  one  occasion,  when 
this  accustomed  solitary  reminder  saluted  the  presiden- 
tial ear,  the  old  man  lost  his  patience,  and  burst  forth, 


330  ]\rY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

"But,  Mr.  Barnwell,  you  don't  give  me  time  to  say  my 
prayers."  Still  the  commissioners  were  kept  waiting, 
find  still  they  got  no  recogTiition.  The  new  President  was 
inaugurated ;  and  now  Seward,  who  became  Secretary  of 
State,  kept  other  commissioners,  who  had  been  appointed 
by  the  Confederate  government,  still  waiting  for  his  de- 
cision, unofficially  holding  out  hopes  of  concession 
through  Justice  Campbell  of  the  Supreme  Court,  who 
wished,  if  possible,  to  mediate  in  the  interest  of  peace. 
On  April  Sth,  while  they  waited,  formal  notice  was  sent 
from  the  Federal  authorities,  not  through  these  commis- 
sioners, but  directly  to  Governor  Pickens,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, that  the  Federal  garrison  in  Fort  Sumter  would  be 
succored  and  provisioned.  The  commissioners,  as  I  re- 
member the  facts,  then,  of  course,  returned  unrecognized, 
and  the  Confederate  government  at  Montgomery,  in- 
formed of  the  coming  of  this  fleet,  ordered  Beauregard  to 
attack  the  fort  without  delay. 

The  fleet  made  no  attempt  to  enter  the  harbor  and 
reach  the  fort.  Such  was  not  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  sent.  The  administration  was  not  prepared  to  com- 
mence hostilities.  The  astute  Secretary's  plan  simply 
was,  by  the  appearance  of  this  fleet  outside  the  harbor, 
to  provoke  the  South  to  strike  the  first  blow  by  firing  on 
the  flag. 

The  first  gun  was  fired  at  Sumter  from  Fort  Moultrie 
on  the  12th  of  April  by  Edmund  Puffin,  Esq.,  an  eminent 
Virginia  statesman.  Hot  shot  from  Fort  Moultrie  set  on 
fire  the  internal  wood-work  of  the  fort.  The  United 
States  flag  was  lowered.  Seward  had  gained  his  object. 
He  had  fired  the  I^orthern  heart.  President  Lincoln  im- 
mediately called  for  seventy-five  thousand  volunteers. 
The  war  was  begun. 

The  Bombardment  of  Chaeleston. 
It  is  not  my  purpose  to  attempt  a  history  of  the  war.  I 
am  only  to  speak  of  events  which  passed  more  or  less  di- 
rectlv  under  my  personal  observation.  Charleston,  which 
witnessed  the  actual  beginning  of  the  war,  was  never  cap- 
tured. The  city  was  long  blockaded,  and  for  two  years 
or  more  was  shelled  from  Morris  Island  and  other  points. 


EKMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAK,  331 

The  Federal  artillery  reduced  Fort  Sumter  to  a  heap  of 
ruins,  but  ruined  as  it  was,  the  Confederates,  under  the 
gallant  Major  Elliott,  held  it  to  the  last.  Working  by 
day  and  by  night,  new  fortifications  were  constructed  out 
of  the  debri?,  and  the  ruined  fort,  wonderful  to  relate,  was 
rendered  impregnable.  The  garrison  was,  of  course,  re- 
cruited continually  from  the  city.  ISTegro  laborers  were 
sent  down,  and  calls  were  made  also  on  the  country  dis- 
tricts for  help  at  this  fort,  and  to  strengthen  the  other 
fortifications. 

I  was  required  to  furnish  two  hands  to  assist  in  this 
heavy  work.  I  selected,  from  my  slaves,  Ben,  surnamed 
Collins,  an  active  and  vigorous  young  negro,  and  put  with 
him  an  elderly  man,  Daniel,  who  rejoiced  in  the  surname 
of  Castlebury.  The  former,  with  the  enthusiasm  of 
youth,  was  delighted  with  my  selection,  and  rendered,  I 
have  no  doubt,  very  excellent  service.  Their  lot  was  to 
be  sent  to  Fort  Sumter.  These  men  were  both  sent  back 
to  me  after  awhile,  and  they  both  had  accounts  to  tell 
which  greatly  interested  us  all,  white  and  black.  Daniel, 
especially,  told  how  the  large  space  surrounding  the 
ruined  walls,  which  was  covered  over  with  brick-bats,  had 
strong  spikes  of  iron  driven  down  amongst  them,  to  sus- 
tain wires  stretched  from  one  to  the  other,  these  being 
intended  to  trip  up  the  enemy,  should  they  land  in  the 
night  time  to  scale  the  low  walls.  Parties,  chiefly  of 
negroes,  Avere  sent  out  from  the  fort  to  work  amongst  these 
wires.  Sometimes  the  alarm  would  be  given  that  the 
boats  of  the  enemy  were  approaching,  and  these  laborers 
would  have  to  retreat  within  the  walls,  and  old  Dan  would 
stumble  over  these  wires  in  his  flight.  But  the  most  as- 
tonishing thing  to  us  all,  which  Daniel  reported,  was 
what  he  called  the  "sugary  freeze."  That  puzzled  us  for 
awhile,  but,  when  he  explained  that  it  had  many  long  pro- 
jecting points,  we  were  able  to  understand  that  he  was 
describing  the  cheveaux  de  frise. 

But  a  second  time  I  was  called  on  for  the  same  amount 
of  help,  and  I  thought  best  to  send  the  same  two,  because 
the  experience  they  had  acquired  might  enable  them  best 
to  take  care  of  themselves.  Ben  Collins  made  no  objec- 
tion, he  rather  liked  the  excitement,  but  Daniel  wished  for 


332  MY  LIFE  A^'D  TIMES. 

a  substitute.  He  said  he  was  willing  to  go,  however,  if  I 
would  promise  that  he  would  not  be  sent  to  Fort  Sumter. 
He  never  wanted  to  see  that  place  again.  I  explained  my 
lack  of  power,  telling  him  that  they  might  have  to  call  on 
me  to  go  there,  and  I  must  submit.  So  down  they  went, 
and,  lo !  Daniel  was  appointed  nowhere  but  to  hated  Fort 
Sumter,  while  Ben  was  sent  to  Fort  Johnson.  But  when 
the  sloop,  which  conveyed  the  relay  of  hands,  arrived  at 
Sumter,  old  Dan  was  nowhere  to  be  found.  Had  he  fallen 
overboard  to  become  a  prey  to  sharks,  or  had  he  run  away 
before  the  sloop  started  ?  There  was  a  lot  of  scaiitling 
and  boards  in  the  hold  of  the  vessel,  and  there  Dan  had 
secreted  himself.  But  he  passed  unhurt  through  his  sec- 
ond service  in  the  dangerous  fort,  and  reached  home  in 
safety,  while  Ben,  poor  fellow,  happening  one  day  to  be 
on  the  parapet  of  Fort  Johnson,  was  struck  on  the  arm 
with  the  fragment  of  a  shell,  and  amputation  was  made 
necessary.  One-armed  Ben,  as  they  afterwards  called 
him,  wdien  emancipation  came,  took  himself  to  Columbia, 
and  I  found  him  there  years  afterwards,  married  and  sup- 
porting himself  and  family  by  circulating  through  the 
city  with  a  little  hand-cart  of  vegetables,  which  he  sold 
to  families  not  convenient  to  the  market-place.  One  sum- 
mer he  paid  me  a  visit  at  my  home,  and  cheerfully  said 
he  could  do  as  much  work  with  his  one  arm,  cutting  wood 
or  mauling  rails,  as  any  other  man. 

Where  the  Ashley  and  the  Cooper  discharge  their 
waters  into  the  ocean,  they  had  produced  a  formidable 
bar,  now  happily  removed,  which  prevented  the  entrance 
of  very  large  vessels,  and  the  fleet  made  no  attempt  to 
enter  the  harbor,  for  its  smaller  vessels  dared  not  en- 
counter the  numerous  torpedoes  with  which  the  channel 
was  filled.  The  bombardment  of  the  city  was  very  much 
dreaded  before  it  began,  notwithstanding  Beauregard's 
assurance  that  it  never  could  produce  much  visible  effect. 
But,  naturally  enough,  the  lower  part  of  the  city  was,  for 
the  most  part,  forsaken  by  its  inhabitants.  St.  Michael's 
steeple  was  a  favorite  target  for  the  artillerist,  the  more 
because  it  was  known  that  members  of  the  signal  corps 
occupied  it  night  and  day.  My  nephew,  Augustine  T. 
Smythe,  was  up  there  many  a  night,  doing  signal  duty, 


REMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAR.  333 

and  shells  sometimes  passed  near  hj,  but  I  think  the 
steeple  was  never  struck.  What  Beauregard  had  told  us 
came  true ;  the  city  was  but  little  hurt  by  the  bombard- 
ment, and  but  few  persons  were  killed  or  wounded.  When 
Sherman  left  Savannah  on  his  way  to  Columbia,  Charles- 
ton was,  of  course,  evacuated.  Since  the  two  years'  bom- 
bardment, she  has  had  other  visitations  more  grievous 
than  this,  among  them  cyclone  and  earthquake,  but  the 
historic  city  still  survives  and  flourishes. 

Soon  after  the  war  began,  Columbia  Theological  Sem- 
inary was  necessarily  closed,  nearly  or  quite  all  the  stu- 
dents having  taken  their  departure  to  go  to  the  army,  and 
I  moved  my  family  to  my  home  in  Pendleton. 

When  the  bombardment  began,  I  repaired  to  Charles- 
ton, packed  up  my  brother  James's  large  and  valuable 
library,  his  house  being  in  a  very  exposed  situation,  car- 
ried it  to  Columbia  and  placed  it  for  safe-keeping  in  the 
basement  of  the  central  building  of  the  Theological  Sem- 
inary. The  furniture  of  that  dwelling  house,  and  of  my 
brother  Robert's,  had  previously  been  conveyed  to  Colum- 
bia, and  stored  in  a  warehouse,  belonging  to  my  Aunt 
iSTancy  Law,  of  that  city. 

When,  owing  to  the  unfortunate  removal  by  President 
Davis  of  General  Joe  Johnston  from  the  command  of  our 
Western  army,  it  failed  to  overthrow  and  rout  Sherman 
at  Atlanta,  as  had  been  confidently  expected,  and  Avhen, 
accordingly,  his  unobstructed  march  through  Georgia  was 
bringing  him  down  to  Savannah,  I  went  again  to  Colum- 
bia, and  moved  my  own  large  and  valuable  library  in 
boxes  to  my  aunt's  warehouse,  and  then  carried  the  most 
of  my  furniture  to  the  same  place.  A  variety  of  other 
matters  in  my  house  at  the  old  Bank,  in  Main  street, 
which  I  thought  would  be  convenient  and  needful  for  our 
use  at  Pendleton,  I  got  ready  to  ship  by  railroad  across 
Broad  river.  But  a  tremendous  freshet  occurred,  and 
tore  away  some  portions  of  the  bridge.  This  detained  me 
for  some  days  in  Columbia. 

In  the  meanwhile  an  incident  occurred  significant  both 
of  the  extreme  pressure  of  those  times,  as  it  affected  all 
classes  of  our  people,  and  also  of  the  high-born  dignity 
with  which  many  Carolina  families  were  able  to  meet  it. 


33-i  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

One  of  onr  citizens,  the  head  of  an  old  Huguenot  family, 
was  president  of  a  bank,  which  had  been  forced  to  remove 
its  treasures  and  its  business  from  Charleston  to  Colum- 
bia. He  asked  me  to  come  around  and  spend  the  evening 
at  his  house.  The  war  had  consumed  most  of  our  luxuries 
of  civilized  life,  amongst  them  coifee.  Many  were  the 
substitutes  for  it  we  were  forced  to  employ.  A  favorite 
one  was  the  seed  of  the  okra  plant.  Another  was  roasted 
cotton  seed.  Still  another  was  sweet  potatoes,  cut  up, 
dried,  and  then  parched,  and  there  were  a  variety  of 
others,  each  one  having  its  own  particular  admirers.  At 
supper  there  sat  two  ladies,  with  my  host  and  myself,  and 
in  the  centre  of  the  table  appeared  one  solitary  dish.  Our 
conversation  went  briskly  on.  Without  the  slightest 
apology,  or  any  reference  whatever  to  the  meagerness  of 
the  diet,  I  was  courteously  invited  to  partake.  It  proved 
to  be  brown  bread,  the  brownest  I  had  ever  beheld  in  all 
my  life ;  but,  to  all  appearance,  the  whole  company  found 
it  very  good.  Whilst  enjoying  this  delicacy,!  was  asked  if 
I  would  take  cotton-seed  coffee,  to  which  I  gave  assent.  It 
was  my  first  introduction  to  that  substitute,  but  I  found 
it  very  refreshing,  though,  if  I  remember  rightly,  there 
was  neither  sugar  nor  cream.  We  united  at  the  close  of 
the  repast  in  expressing  thanks  to  the  kind  providence 
which  had  once  more  furnished  us  with  food. 

Before  I  left  home  on  this  trip  to  Columbia,  having  a 
very  valuable  pair  of  carriage  horses,  and  knowing  how 
great  would  be  the  danger  of  their  being  taken  from  me, 
I  had  determined  to  sell  them.  At  the  opening  of  the 
war  I  had  given  three  fine  horses  to  fit  up  a  cavalry 
company  at  Columbia,  but  this  pair  of  horses  were  un- 
suited  to  cavalry  use  from  their  size  and  weight.  Rufus 
Johnston,  president  of  a  bank  in  Columbia,  had  offered 
me  $7,000  Confederate  money  for  them,  and  I  had  a 
debt  to  pay,  for  which  I  required  the  money.  The  horses 
had  cost  me  $800,  in  good  money.  My  carriage  driver, 
Alfred,  was  a  very  competent  young  negro  slave,  of  great 
intelligence.  I  had  entire  confidence  in  his  faithfulness 
and  honesty,  as  well  as  capacity.  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Johnston 
to  accept  his  oft'er,  and  dispatched  Alfred,  with  the  horses, 
to  Columbia.     There  were  great  and  various  dangers  on 


KEMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAR.  oob 

his  way,  but  he  piloted  his  charge  safely  through  them  all, 
delivered  them  to  my  correspondent,  and  returned  safely 
home  without  delay.  This  will  illustrate  the  relations 
subsisting  between  master  and  slave  amongst  us,  and  also 
that  between  valuable  property  and  our  currency  at  this 
period. 

Before  leaving  Columbia  to  return  home,  being  aware 
of  the  treatment  South  Carolina  and  Columbia  might  ex- 
pect to  receive  from  General  Tecumseh  Sherman,  I  ac- 
cepted an  offer  from  a  Jewish  gentleman,  of  the  name  of 
Jacobs,  of  $30,000  for  my  dwelling  house,  from  which  I 
had  just  removed  all  the  furniture.  It  was  Confederate 
money.  I  took  it  right  over  to  the  proper  office,  and  gave 
it  for  Confederate  bonds.  I  cannot  recall  to  mind,  though 
I  have  often  tried  to  do  so,  what  disposition  I  then  made 
of  the  bonds.  They  vanished  alike  from  my  possession 
and  recollection.  The  house  for  which  I  got  these  bonds 
was  built  of  brick,  three  stories  high,  four  large  rooms  on 
a  floor,  standing  on  the  main  street,  with  a  large  lot  of 
land  in  the  rear,  with  all  necessary  outbuildings.  It  had 
been  built  for  one  of  the  city  banks,  and  was  long  so  em- 
ployed. When  I  became  professor  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  in  185Y,  I  purchased  it  for  $7,000  cash.  Here 
is  an  illustration  of  the  value  of  real  estate  in  a  flourish- 
ing city,  in  the  anticipation  of  a  visit  by  a  brutal  general, 
at  the  head  of  an  army  thirsting  for  booty.  We  were  well 
aware  of  what  he  had  allowed  to  be  done  in  his  progress 
through  Georgia,  but  we  had  also  heard  of  the  threats  he 
had  made  against  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  and 
against  their  capital. 

I  now  forwarded  to  Alston,  by  railroad,  the  matters  I 
had  selected  from  my  house  to  go  to  Pendleton.  There  I 
had  to  get  a  boat  to  carry  them  past  the  broken  bridge  over 
the  river.  Once  on  the  other  side,  I  was  able  to  transport 
them  by  railroad  to  my  home  in  Pendleton. 

]^ot  long  after  this,  Sherman  reached  the  borders  of 
South  Carolina,  and  then  it  was  that  he  began,  especially, 
to  teach  the  people,  as  he  said,  ''what  war  means."  They 
had  desired  war,  and  he  would  give  it  to  them.  His  track 
was  marked  all  along  through  this  State  by  the  standing 
chimneys  of  burnt  dwelling  houses.     Such  chimneys  were 


330  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  moniinients  lie  erected  for  hiniself  in  South  Carolina. 
His  war,  as  he  went  along,  was  against  women  and  chil- 
dren. On  the  17th  of  February  his  army  reached  Colum- 
bia. I  leave  it  to  others  to  describe,  in  general,  the  hor- 
rors that  ensued.  I  shall  speak  only  of  what  I  learned 
from  my  aunt,  Mrs.  Law,  and  her  sister,  who  was  living 
with  her.  Like  other  ladies  who  needed  protection,  she 
had  obtained  a  guard  of  two  or  three  soldiers.  They  had 
appeared  civil  all  the  day,  and  treated  her  respectfully. 
But  when  night  came,  and  the  three  rocket  signals  went 
up,  the  pandemonium,  which  broke  loose,  came  to  her 
house,  and  her  guards  then  joined  with  their  drunken 
fellows.  They  all  went  up  stairs  together,  beginning,  she 
said,  at  the  third  story,  with  their  work  of  robbing  and 
setting  fire,  and  so  coming  down  through  the  second  to  the 
lower  story,  and  then  they  said  to  her,  ''Old  woman,  if  you 
don't  want  to  be  burnt  up,  you  had  better  get  out  of  this 
house."  She  essayed  to  go,  where  her  sister  had  preceded 
her,  with  her  daughter  and  a  young  babe,  to  the  house  of 
Alexander  Haskell,  on  the  top  of  Arsenal  Hill,  which  was 
not  far  from  her  own  burning  dwelling.  But  the  streets 
were  full  of  soldiers,  many  of  them  drunk,  and  the  houses 
all  on  fire.  She  had  been  subject  to  vertigo,  and  was  some 
three-score  and  ten  years  old.  She  told  me  that,  as  she 
staggered  along  by  herself,  she  was  afraid  that  she  might 
fall  beneath  some  of  the  spreading  flames.  But  she 
reached  the  Haskell  house  in  safety,  and  found  it  full  of 
women  and  children.  Her  sister  told  me  she  saw  the 
soldiers  throwing  balls  of  some  material  saturated  with 
turpentine,  and  set  on  fire,  into  the  warehouse  or  maga- 
zine, which  had  been  filled  full  Avith  what  we  had  stored 
there.  Where  my  aunt  passed  the  next  day  and  night  she 
could  not  herself  tell,  and  it  was  only  on  the  second  or 
the  third  day  that  some  friends  found  her  wandering 
through  her  old  ruined  garden,  and  she  was,  by  them,  re- 
moved to  rooms  in  the  Seminary  building,  which  had  been 
vacated.  In  the  good  providence  of  God,  it  was  so  ordered 
that,  in  poverty  and  suffering,  she  was  to  find  a  refuge  in 
Law  Hall,  a  three-story  brick  building,  of  many  apart- 
ments, wdiicli  had  been  erected  on  the  Seminary  grounds, 
with  money  generously  given  by  herself,  and  it  was  there. 


EEMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAR.  337 

after  a  short  time,  her  long  and  useful  life  came  to  an 
end. 

Fort  Sumter  surrendered  to  Beauregard  on  the  13th  of 
April,  1861.  Our  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia 
closed  early  in  the  next  month.  I  ministered,  during  my 
summer  vacation,  to  the  little  Mt.  Zion  congregation,  wor- 
shipping about  two  miles  from  my  house,  in  the  old 
church  building  where  I  first  met  the  South  Carolina 
Presbytery,  in  1852,  while  looking  for  a  home  in  the 
Piedmont  country.  One  of  my  first  ofiicial  acts  in  that 
congregation  was  to  bury,  in  their  cemetery,  two  young 
soldiers,  members  of  that  church.  They  belonged  to  the 
Fourth  South  Carolina  Regiment,  commanded,  in  the 
first  Mannassas  battle,  by  Colonel  J.  B.  E.  Sloan,  of  Pen- 
dleton. The  regiment  had  their  position  in  the  thick  of 
that  fight,  near  to  Jackson's  Virginians.  It  was  to  them 
General  Bee,  originally  himself  of  Pendleton,  and  who 
also  fell  in  the  same  battle,  had  addressed  his  famous  ex- 
hortation, which  gave  a  sobriquet  to  Jackson,  "South 
Carolinians,  be  firm ;  don't  you  see  how  Jackson's  men, 
right  there,  are  standing  like  a  stone  wall  ?"  The  South 
Carolina  regiment  stood  firm,  but,  after  the  battle,  these 
two  Pendleton  young  men  lost  their  lives.     They  were 

cousins,  ^Michael  Bollotte  and Hillhouse.     They  were 

walking  together  over  the  bloody  field,  and,  seeing  a  com- 
rade of  theirs,  named  Lewis,  examining  a  spent  ball, 
which  he  had  picked  up,  they,  in  their  thoughtless  curi- 
osity, went  up  to  examine  the  same.  When  they  were  all 
satisfied,  Lewis  let  the  ball  drop  at  their  feet.  It  ex- 
ploded, and  the  two  cousins  were  killed  on  the  spot. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  L.  McBryde,  pastor  of  the  Pen- 
dleton Presbyterian  Church,  died  on  the  15th  of  April, 
1863.  I  had  assisted  him  frequently  before  his  death, 
and  after  it  ministered  to  his  people  till  the  close  of  the 
war.  I  had  many  occasions  for  encouraging  their  hearts 
during  its  progress,  and  giving  them  consolation  in  the 
bereavements  it  occasioned. 

Pendleton  and  its  neighborhood  furnished  a  good  many 
soldiers.  Amongst  those  who  never  returned  there  were 
Captain  Warren  and  Major  Wright,  both  of  Camden, 
whose  wives  were  the  daughters  of  Mr.  Robert  Maxwell. 


338  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

There  was  Edward  Maxwell,  whose  father  I  have  named, 
who  had  just  graduated  at  the  South  Caroliua  College. 
Ezekiel  Pickens,  who,  though  he  never  got  to  the  war, 
died,  on  his  way  thither,  at  Richmond.  There  Avas  also 
]\rajor  Kilpatrick,  whose  body,  with  that  of  young 
Pickens,  I  committed  to  their  tombs  in  the  old  historic 
Stone  Church  Cemetery.  There  were  also  Tally  Simpson, 
Willie  Seaborn,  Julius  Ross,  Earl  Lewis,  Laurens  and 
Ben  Smith,  two  brothers,  and,  perhaps,  others,  Avho  all 
fell  in  battle.  Besides  those  who  never  returned,  Pendle- 
ton and  its  neighborhood  sent  at  least  thirty  others,  some 
of  whom  returned  quite  unhurt,  others  had  been  wounded 
more  or  less  severely,  and  yet  others  had  suffered  impris- 
onment for  a  longer  or  shorter  period. 

But  there  was  one  man  who  went  from  Pendleton  to  the 
war  and  never  returned  whose  case  was  specially  pitiful. 
His  name  was  John  Hix.  He  was  my  overseer  for  some 
years,  but  when,  in  1858,  I  sold  Woodburn  to  my  brother 
Ellison,  and  moved  to  Boscobel,  this  man  continued  to 
be  the  overseer  for  my  brother-.  He  had  a  wife  and  a 
number  of  children,  besides  Billy,  a  sister's  son,  whom  he 
had  adopted.  He  was  a  good  man,  a  Baptist,  and  he 
sometimes  preached  in  their  Lebanon  church.  His  family 
would  be  helpless  without  him,  and  he  did  not  volunteer. 
As  the  war  went  on  he  was  drafted,  and  he  was  very  un- 
willing to  go.  He  told  me  that  he  knew  he  would  be 
killed  in  the  very  first  battle.  But  he  went  in  May,  1863, 
and  his  company  passed  through  Charlotte,  IST.  C,  whilst 
I  was  in  attendance  upon  our  General  Assembly  at  that 
place.  I  was  the  guest  of  Judge  Osborn,  and  poor  John 
Hix  called  to  see  me.  He  told  me  he  knew  he  was  going 
to  his  death.  Judge  Osborn  invited  the  soldier  to  remain, 
and  take  supper  with  us.  After  supper  he  went  on  his 
way  with  his  comrades.  A  battle  took  place  as  soon  as 
he  got  to  the  army.  John  Hix  was  in  it,  and  a  cruel  can- 
non ball  tore  away  his  whole  stomach,  and  the  soldier  fell 
dead.  How  dreadful  is  war !  We  helped  his  family  all 
we  could,  and  I  met  Billy  some  years  after  the  war,  and 
he  was  doing  well.  But  the  family  drifted  out  of  our 
sight. 

1  must  also  here  add  another  affecting  story,  told  me 


REMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAR.  339 

by  my  friend,  Pierson,  one  of  the  ministers  of  South  Car- 
olina Presbytery,  who  became  a  chaplain  in  our  army, 
when  Johnston  was  retreating  before  Sherman.  He 
found  himself  at  some  place  below  the  city  of  Atlanta, 
where  a  train  of  cars  was  expected  full  of  Avounded  sol- 
diers. With  a  number  of  others,  bent  on  the  like  errand, 
he  was  ready,  with  a  bucket  of  water  and  a  cup  to  give  it, 
filled  with  cold  water,  to  these  suffering  men.  He  entered 
a  box-car.  Wounded  soldiers  were  strung  all  around 
against  its  sides.  He  began  to  administer  the  cooling 
draught,  when  one  of  them  said,  "We  want  the  water,  but 
there  is  a  boy  there  in  the  extreme  corner,  who,  we  think, 
is  dying ;  won't  you  go  first  and  speak  to  him  ?"  Mr. 
Pierson  says,  "He  was  dreadfully  wounded,  and  hardly 
conscious,  for  to  my  first  questions  he  made  no  answer. 
Anxious  to  find  out  who  the  parents  of  this  dying  young 
soldier  were,  that  I  might  write  to  them,  I  then  asked 
him,  'What  is  your  father's  name  ?'  He  answered,  'I  am 
my  father's  precious  jewel.'  Then  I  asked,  'Who  is  your 
mother  V  He  said,  'I  am  my  mother's  darling  boy.'  I 
said,  'Where  does  your  father  live  V  He  began,  'Our  Fa- 
ther, which  art  in  heaven,'  and  slowly,  but  clearly,  re- 
peating the  whole  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  the  end,  and 
saying,  'Amen,'  he  breathed  his  last,  and  I  saw  he  was 
gone."  The  chaplain  told  me  he  would  give  everything  he 
had  in  the  world  to  have  known  that  boy's  name,  and 
where  his  home  was.  ^one  of  the  soldiers  were  able  to 
tell  him. 

When  President  Davis  and  his  Cabinet  found  it  neces- 
sary to  quit  Richmond,  their  course  carried  them  through 
the  Piedmont  portion  of  South  Carolina,  but  they  did 
not  come  by  Pendleton.  One  night  they  lodged  at  Abbe- 
ville with  my  friend,  Mr.  Thomas  C.  Perrin,  in  that 
spacious  and  magnificent  mansion  which  was  shortly 
afterwards  destroj'ed  by  fire.  In  the  convention  which 
passed  the  ordinance  of  secession,  the  delegates  were 
called  on  to  sign  for  their  districts  in  alphabetical  order, 
and  so  Mr.  Perrin,  representing  Abbeville,  signed  first  of 
all  the  secessionists,  not  only  of  South  Carolina,  but  of 
the  whole  South.  It  is  something  of  a  coincidence  that, 
as  he  told  me  himself,  they  lield  their  last  Cabinet  meeting 


340  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

in  his  house,  agreeing  that  they  wonhl  disperse  when  they 
left  Abbeville.  Mr.  Benjamin,  Secretary  of  State,  who 
afterwards  became  a  very  eminent  lawyer  in  London,  said 
to  Mr.  Perrin,  after  that  last  meeting  broke  up,  "What 
is  the  best  and  safest  disposition  for  me  to  make  of  the 
seal  of  the  Confederacy  ?"  Mr.  Perrin  replied,  "You  are 
going  to  cross  the  Savannah  river  to-morrow  morning,  and 
I  would  suggest  that  you  consign  it  to  the  keeping  of  that 
river."  Mr.  Perrin  informed  me  of  these  facts  himself, 
and  supposed  that  the  seal  had  been  deposited  in  the  mid- 
dle of  that  river.  But  1  have  heard  of  parties  in  this 
State  or  Georgia  who  claim  to  have  possession  of  that 
seal. 

We  did  not  hear,  at  Pendleton,  of  the  removal  of  the 
Cabinet  from  Richmond,  until,  after  a  number  of  days, 
there  came  through  our  neighborhood  a  large  number  of 
Federal  troops,  said  to  be  five  thousand  men,  under  one 
Colonel  Browm.  Then  we  heard  that  they  were  in  pur- 
suit of  President  Davis.  Kone  of  these  soldiers  passed 
through  our  village.  A  company  of  them  came  to  its  con- 
fines, and  Mr.  James  Hunter,  the  intendant  of  our  little 
town,  walked  out,  having  a  sword  by  his  side,  and  had  a 
conference  with  their  captain.  What  passed  between 
them  I  never  heard,  but  I  believe  they  had  got  informa- 
tion that  we  had  a  body  of  troops  in  our  village,  and  so 
turned  off  to  the  left,  and  moved  towards  Anderson 
Courthouse,  whither  the  main  body  had  gone.  These  said 
troops  of  ours  were  a  small  body  of  very  old  men,  and 
some  fifty  lads,  one  of  them  my  son  John,  about  fifteen 
years  old,  armed  with  some  small  and  very  inferior  shot- 
guns. They  had  been  patrolling  around  Pendleton  for 
sometime,  searching  for  deserters,  and  known  as  "Home 
Guards,"  under  the  command  of  Captain  Jones.  How 
they  happened  to  miss  the  Federals,  when  passing  around 
Pendleton,  I  cannot  tell,  but  a  day  or  two  after  this,  a 
portion  of  them  had  got  wind  of  some  soldiers  being  at 
Mr.  Elias  Earle's,  on  the  Anderson  road,  four  miles  from 
the  city.  Duff  Greene  Calhoun,  a  young  fellow  of  about 
eighteen,  Avas  leading  these  boys  at  the  time,  and,  like 
boys,  they  took  after  the  Yankees.  Happily  for  these 
young  j)atriots,  the  Yankees  heard  them  coming,  or,  per- 


REMIJN^ISCENCES  OF  THE  WAR.  341 

haps,  saw  them  tearing  down  the  big  road  a  mile  off,  and, 
fearing  to  encounter  these  invincibles,  they  fled  inconti- 
nently, and  our  chaps  pursued  them  for  a  mile. 

After  two  or  three  days,  there  came  to  my  brother 
Robert's  house,  one  mile  from  mine,  a  battalion  of  these 
soldiers,  commanded  by  a  major,  seeking  to  find  the 
treasure,  which  our  President  and  Cabinet  had  left  there. 
This  story  had,  no  doubt,  been  told  them  by  some  persons 
in  Anderson,  but  there  was  no  truth  in  it,  as  I  have  inti- 
mated already.  But  the  major  demanded  the  treasure, 
and  threatened  to  hang  my  brother  if  it  was  not  forth- 
coming. The  officer  even  insisted  upon  telling  him  just 
where  the  money  was  hidden.  There  was  a  place,  under 
the  open  basement  of  his  house,  always  covered  with 
planks,  and  some  negroes  in  Anderson,  who  knew  my 
brother's  house,  must  have  told  the  major  that  Jeff.  Davis' 
gold  was  under  those  boards.  My  brother  had  the  boards 
lifted,  and  a  hole  dug  in  the  ground  deep  enough  to 
satisfy  the  major  that  he  had  been  misinformed,  and  was 
not  to  secure  the  coveted  prize  of  the  Confederacy's  gold 
and  silver.  He  did,  however,  find  and  take  away  with 
him  a  very  magnificent  military  saddle,  which  was  in 
one  of  the  upper  rooms  of  the  house.  This  saddle  had 
been  sent  from  England,  by  Mr.  Prioleau,  for  General 
Beauregard,  and  had  been  committed  to  my  brother's  care 
until  he  could  find  an  opportunity  to  forward  it  to  the 
General. 

While  their  commanding  officer  had  been  making  this 
search,  some  of  his  men  had  made  the  ladies  of  the  family 
give  up  their  watches.  The  major,  being  informed  of 
this,  was  considerate  enough  to  have  them  restored ;  but 
no  sooner  had  he  and  his  command  moved  off,  than  those 
men  slipped  back,  and  once  more  took  possession  of  their 
booty. 

While  this  body  of  soldiers  were  at  Rivoli,  my 
brother's  place,  seven  or  eight  of  them  came  over  to  Bos- 
cobel,  where  I  lived.  I  was  lame  at  the  time,  and  obliged 
to  use  a  crutch.  When  they  came  up,  I  was  out  at  some 
distance  from  the  house,  but  they  saw  me,  and  one  came 
over  to  me.  He  said,  "Are  you  the  owner  of  this  place  ?" 
I  said,  "Yes,  are  you  Yankees  ?"    He  said,  "Yes,  we  are. 


342  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Where  are  your  horses  ?"  I  told  him  1  had  sent  them 
awav.  "You  sent  them  away,  did  you  f  said  he.  "Yes," 
said  I,  "I  sent  them  away,  that  you  might  not  get  hold 
of  them."  "Well,"  he  said,  "you  come  up  to  the  house, 
and  we'll  take  care  of  you."  We  went  up  to  the  house 
together,  where  there  were  two  or  three  more  men,  and 
my  escort  said  to  them,  "He  has  sent  away  his  horses,  so 
that  we  might  not  find  them."  Just  as  he  was  speaking, 
I  saw  that  some  of  his  comrades  had  gone  into  the  house. 
So  I  immediately  turned  from  the  men  who  were  talking 
to  me  and  went  in.  One  of  the  party,  who  had  first  gone 
into  the  house,  demanded  my  watch.  I  gave  it  to  him,  but 
said,  "Does  your  government  send  you  all  through  this 
country  just  to  rob  private  citizens  ?"  Said  he,  "Do  you 
suppose  I  would  go  riding  all  about  here  and  not  take 
anything  home  to  my  family  ?"  I  was  quite  tired  with 
my  little  walk,  so  I  said  to  him,  "Sit  down,  I  want  to  talk 
to  you."  "No,"  said  he,  "I  haven't  got  time,"  and  he 
started  up  stairs.  The  fact  was,  he  did  not  enjoy  my  fin- 
gering his  conscience.  Several  ladies  of  my  family  were 
near,  and  he  said  to  them,  "Don't  be  afraid,  ladies,  we've 
seen  ladies  before.  We  only  want  to  get  pistols  and  gold 
watches."  But  they  took  whatever  jewelry  and  articles 
of  value  they  found.  I  followed  this  man  about  as  well  as 
1  could  with  my  crutch,  and  pretty  soon  found  myself 
walking  with  him  through  one  side  of  my  wide  piazza, 
and  do\vn  the  back  steps,  where  his  horse  was  standing 
hitched.  The  man  started  to  mount.  As  he  did  so,  my 
back  was  turned  towards  him,  and  I  heard  his  gun  go  off. 
Startled  at  the  sound,  I  turned  to  look,  and  saw  the  man 
I  had  been  talking  to  falling  head  foremost  from  his  sad- 
dle, with  the  blood  pouring  in  a  stream  from  a  wound  in 
his  throat.  The  sound  of  his  gun  made  several  of  the 
others  rush  to  the  scene,  and  two  of  them  raised  their 
guns,  and  were  about  to  shoot. 

My  daughter,  Mrs.  Mullally,  was  in  the  piazza,  the  only 
witness  to  what  had  happened.  She  cried  out  to  them, 
"Tie  shot  himself."  I  had  not  had  one  particle  of  fear  of 
them  from  the  beginning,  and  I  took  command,  calling 
out,  "Don't  you  see  this  man  is  bleeding  to  death  ?  Come 
here,  some  of  you,  and  lift  him  up."     Three  of  them 


REMINISCENCES  OF  THE  WAK.  343 

obeyed.  As  soon  as  they  raised  liim,  it  was  plainly  to  be 
seen  that,  as  he  mounted  his  horse,  his  gun  was  discharged, 
the  bullet  entering  his  throat,  and  coming  out  at  the  top 
of  his  head.  Instantly,  they  dropped  his  head,  and  all 
three  began  promptly  to  empty  his  numerous  pockets, 
which  were  full  of  plunder.  I  was  standing  at  his  head, 
and  they  were  busy  at  my  feet.  All  kinds  of  things  came 
out  of  those  pockets.  I  clapped  my  hands  over  their 
heads,  and  said,  ''The  hand  of  God  is  on  you,  men.  Give 
me  back  my  watch."  They  seemed  to  be  impressed,  and 
looked  from  one  to  the  other  to  see  who  had  taken  the 
watch.  It  was  quietly  given  back  to  me.  My  daughter 
cried  out,  "Father,  they've  got  my  watch,  too !"  I  clapped 
my  hands  again  over  their  heads,  and  said,  "Give  back 
that  lady  her  watch."  It,  too,  was  surrendered,  and  they 
departed,  taking  with  them  their  comrade's  horse,  and  all 
his  other  belongings,  but  showing  no  feeling  or  concern 
for  him.  The  man  was  still  living,  though  unconscious. 
I  told  them,  as  they  left,  that  I  would  bury  him  when 
dead,  and  this  seemed  to  convert  me  into  a  friend.  Then 
they  paused  and  told  me  the  dying  man  was  from  Hills- 
dale, Mich.,  that  his  name  was  Alanson  Chapman,  and 
that  he  had  a  brother  out  on  the  road  with  the  rest  of  the 
battalion,  who  could  now  be  seen  not  very  far  off.  As  my 
visitors  were  riding  off  through  the  gate,  two  young  colts 
in  the  yard  seemed  disposed  to  follow  their  horses.  I 
called  after  the  men,  telling  them  not  to  let  those  colts  out, 
though  I  thought  it  more  than  likely  they  would  shoot  the 
colts  and  ride  off.  But  they  quietly  drove  them  back,  and 
also  shut  the  gate. 

Two  or  three  weeks  after  this,  the  alarm  was  given  at 
my  house  that  four  Yankees  were  coming  up  the  avenue. 
I  left  the  breakfast  table  and  went  out  to  meet  them. 
Two  I  recognized  as  of  the  previous  party.  One  of  the 
other  two  had  dismounted,  and  was  standing  on  the 
ground.  Addressing  him,  I  asked,  "What  do  you  want  ?" 
He  said,  "We  have  come  to  see  about  that  man  who  was 
hurt !  What  did  you  do  with  him  ?"  A  look  into  his  eyes 
showed  me  that  he  was  the  brother  of  the  dead  man.  I 
said  to  him,  "Your  brother  died  that  night;  would  you 
like  to  see  his  srave  ?"     At  that  moment  a  servant  came 


344  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

up  with  my  buggy  and  a  horse  I  had  borrowed  from  my 
brother,  mine  having  been  found  in  their  hiding  phice  in 
the  woods,  and  carried  off  by  some  of  their  company.  I 
got  into  the  buggy,  and  we  all  rode  down  to  a  beautiful 
little  pine  thicket,  which  was  used  as  a  burial  place  by 
the  negroes  of  my  plantation. 

I  must  say,  first,  that  when  the  raider  died,  my  old 
negro  man  Charles,  the  manager  of  my  affairs,  seemed 
to  foresee,  as  I  did  not,  that  we  should  have  this  second 
visit.  I  had  told  him  to  prepare  a  decent  coffin  and  grave, 
and  to  gather  all  the  people  together  in  the  afternoon,  that 
I  might  go  with  them  down  to  the  grave  for  religious  ser- 
vices— all  of  which  we  did.  But  the  old  man  had  also 
made  a  nice  pine  head-board  and  foot-mark ;  brought 
them  to  me,  and  asked  me  to  put  the  dead  man's  name  on 
the  head-board.  I  made  objections,  but  he  prevailed,  and 
I  carved  and  inked — 

ALANSON  CHAPMAN, 

Hillsdale,  Michigan, 

Died  May  5th, 

1865. 

So  we  had  marked  the  grave.  When  the  brother  looked 
at  the  inscription,  I  saw  the  water  come  into  his  eyes,  and 
turning  to  me,  he  said,  ''Sir,  you  have  done  all  you  could 
for  my  poor  brother,"  and  then  expressed  his  hearty 
thanks.  1  told  him  I  could  do  no  less  for  any  man  Avho 
died  at  my  door.  He  then  informed  me  that  our  Presi- 
dent had  been  captured  by  other  pursuers,  and  said  that 
he  would  come  back,  after  awhile,  and  take  away  his 
brother's  body.  As  we  all  came  back  together,  the  thought 
would  come  into  my  mind  that  my  brother  was  certainly 
going  to  lose  his  horse ;  but  not  so.  They  left  me  with 
bows,  and  went  straight  to  Colonel  Sloan's  stable,  where 
they  found  no  horses.  They  next  went  to  old  Mrs.  ISTorth's 
place;  met  her  carriage  coming  right  out  of  her  gate, 
and,  taking  her  horses,  left  the  carriage  right  in  the  gate- 
way, and  started  back  to  their  camp,  which  was  on  the 
other  side  of  the  river. 

Immediately  after  their  departure,  I  gladly  took  the 


EEMIXISCEXCES  OF  THE  WAR,  345 

horse  and  buggy,  and,  with  my  wife,  whose  nerves  had 
been  a  good  deal  shaken,  went  for  a  good  long  drive  to 
make  some  pastoral  visits,  which  occupied  me  the  greater 
part  of  the  day.  Returning  from  my  circuit  of  visitations 
in  the  afternoon,  what  should  I  behold  but  the  four  sol- 
diers, now  convicted  thieves  and  prisoners.  Old  Captain 
John  Maxwell  they  had  threatened  to  murder  the  day 
before,  but  he  had  leaped  on  his  blooded  mare,  old  man  as 
he  was,  clearing  the  fence,  where  she  stood  ready  sad- 
dled, and  escaped.  On  that  occasion,  there  were  other 
soldiers  with  them,  and  a  major  in  command.  This 
major,  pursuing  old  Captain  John  and  his  blooded  mare, 
which  he  must  have  coveted  much,  drew  his  pistol  and 
fired,  but  at  that  moment,  his  own  horse,  throwing  up  its 
head,  received  the  shot  from  his  rider's  pistol  and  fell. 
'Next  day.  Captain  John,  Major  Ben  Sloan,  his  nephew, 
and  another  nephew,  met  these  four  men,  captured  them, 
sent  back  Mrs.  jSTorth's  horses,  and  brought  the  prisoners, 
and  delivered  them  to  the  citizens  of  Pendleton.  Some 
young  counsellors  would  have  dealt  with  them  in  a  very 
summary  way.  Older  heads,  however,  prevailed.  The  pris- 
oners were  sent  back  that  night,  under  guard  of  three 
armed  men,  to  be  delivered  up  to  their  general  as  horse 
thieves.  On  the  return  of  these  guards,  they  said  their 
prisoners  had  knelt  and  begged  for  their  lives  in  every 
dark  place  on  the  road,  where  the  moonliglit  did  not  reach, 
and  that  they  had  at  last  set  them  loose  before  they 
reached  the  camp.  It  was  feared  they  had  otherwise  dis- 
posed of  them,  but  my  man  certainly  reached  his  home 
in  safety,  for  I  got  a  letter  from  his  old  father,  thanking 
me,  and  saying  he  would  come  for  his  son's  body  very 
soon.  I  advised  him  that  it  would  not  be  healthy  for  him 
to  visit  us  just  then.  Six  months  after  this  a  squad  of 
soldiers  was  sent  from  Anderson  for  the  remains  of  the 
dead  raider. 

In  September,  1865,  Dr.  Howe,  Dr.  Woodrow,  and  my- 
self reopened  the  Seminary,  Dr.  Thornwell's  chair  being 
vacant  through  his  lamented  death  in  1863. 

Previously  to  going  down,  I  had  announced  to  my 
slaves  that  they  were  all  free.  The  coming  of  emancipa- 
tion had  been  talked  of  all  through  the  summer,  and  they 


346  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

had  made  inquiries  about  it  of  myself,  and  I  had  told 
them  that,  whenever  it  was  determined,  I  should  inform 
them  of  it.  It  was,  perhaps,  in  August  that  the  action  of 
the  State  of  South  Carolina  had  settled  the  question,  and 
I  told  them  all  that  I  could  no  longer  employ  them,  and 
that  they  must  find  homes  for  themselves.  They  were 
about  thirty  in  number.  One  of  them,  a  man  named  Mor- 
ris, had  a  wife  and  a  number  of  children,  several  of  them 
well  grown  boys.  lie  alone  of  the  whole  number  ob- 
jected very  much  to  the  terms  of  their  emancipation, 
having  this  large  family  to  support.  In  general,  they 
received  the  announcement  with  indifference.  To  Morris 
it  seemed  that  the  government  had  treated  him  very  badly, 
in  setting  him  free  without  '"giving  him  a  start,"  as  he  ex- 
pressed it.  But  he  was  a  sober,  faithful  and  industrious 
man,  and  his  wife  an  excellent  cook,  and  they  soon  found 
employment  for  themselves  and  their  older  lioys,  so  that 
they  could  live  on  their  wages.  The  whole  company  very 
soon  scattered,  and  I  lost  sight  of  them  all. 

My  head  man  w^as  Charles,  surnamed  Morgan.  As  I 
shall  hereafter  show,  he  was  a  character.  He  had  a  wife 
and  one  son,  and  this'  son  had  a  wife  and  two  daughters 
eight  and  ten  years  old.  This  son,  named  Alfred,  I  have 
previously  mentioned  as  a  remarkably  intelligent  and 
faithful  negro.  Hearing  that  wages  were  high  at  Mem- 
phis, Tenn.,  he  counselled  Avith  me  about  moving  there, 
and  then  did  move  with  his  wife  and  children.  His  old 
mother  chose  to  go  with  her  son,  leaving  her  husband 
behind.  It  turned  out,  I  fear,  an  unfortunate  move,  for 
a  very  few  years  after  this  a  dreadful  season  of  yellow 
fever  visited  Memphis,  and  thousands  of  negroes,  as  well 
as  white  people,  fell  victims.  As  I  never  heard  of  Alfred 
after  this  event,  I  am  apprehensive  that  they  all  perished 
under  this  scourge. 

"When,  in  1847,  it  became  settled  that  the  abolitionists 
of  iSTew  England  would  not  allow  me  to  return  to  my  for- 
eign missionary  work,  and  that  I  was  to  remain  in  my 
native  city,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  negroes,  I  became 
at  once  a  householder  and  a  slaveholder,  an  advisable  step 
as  regarded  both  the  white  people  and  the  black.  When, 
in  1852,  I  moved  to  Pendleton,  and  bcoan  the  life  of  a 


KE:\rI^fISCENCEs  or  the  war.  347 

farmer  for  the  saving-  of  my  eyesight,  I  purchased  some 
slaves  to  work  the  land.  Charles  Morgan  and  his  family 
were  the  first  whom  I  bought.  Xaturally,  having  just 
come  from  the  work  of  a  missionary  to  the  negroes  in 
Charleston,  I  felt  much  interest  in  the  religious  condition 
of  these  people.  Accordingly,  I  used  earnest  eiforts  to 
induce  them  to  attend  my  family  prayers  every  evening, 
and  I  also  told  them  they  must  go  to  church  in  the  village 
on  Sunday.  This  I  considered  to  be  my  duty  as  a  Chris- 
tian master.  After  a  Sunday  or  two,  Charles  came  to  me 
and  said,  '']\Easter,  I  can  obey  orders,  but  I  don't  want 
you  to  tell  me  that  I  must  go  to  church."  And  he  went 
on  to  say  that  he  did  not  believe  in  religion ;  he  had  seen 
the  time,  he  said,  when  he  had  often  run  miles  to  hear  a 
certain  preacher,  and  this  man  was  afterwards  found  out 
in  his  wickedness.  He  further  said  that  if  he  only  was 
obedient  to  his  earthly  master,  he  had  nothing  else  to  be 
afraid  of.  I  saw  at  once  that  I  was  dealing  with  a  man 
who  had  a  head  on  his  shoulders  Avith  brains  in  it,  but 
having  also  a  heart  in  him  full  of  unbelief.  I  said  to  him 
at  once  that  he  had  mistaken  me,  and  that  he  might  be 
sure  that  I  did  not  mean  to  take  a  stick  to  force  him  to 
pray,  or  to  drive  him  to  church  with.  Of  course,  no  com- 
pulsory methods  can  be  employed  in  bringing  religion  to 
negroes,  or  to  any  other  men. 

This  reminds  me  of  something  that  occurred  at 
Smyrna,  Asia  Minor.  I  was  intimately  acquainted  with 
a  converted  Jew,  John  Cohen  by  name.  His  wife  was  a 
Greek,  who  had  been  educated  in  Ireland.  Talking  with 
my  friend  about  his  wife,  I  inquired  if  she  was  a  praying 
woman.  John  knew  English  pretty  well,  but  did  not 
always  remember  the  force  of  some  of  our  idioms.  His 
answer  was,  "Oh !  yes,  my  wife  is  a  praying  woman ;  I 
make  her  pray." 

I  had  many  talks  with  Charles  subsequently.  He  was 
greatly  attached  to  me  personallv,  and  I  considered  him 
to  be  a  faithful  servant,  and  so  he  came  to  be  entrusted 
with  all  my  plantation  matters,  and  through  him  I  gave 
all  my  orders  to  the  rest.  Once  in  awhile,  they  would  ac- 
cuse him  to  me,  and  one  gentleman  in  the  village,  that 
was  smart  enough  himself  in  a  trade,  with  whom  Charles 


348  MY  LIFE  A^'D  TIMES. 

had  dealings  on  my  account,  Avas  known  to  have  said, 
"Why,  the  old  rascal;   he  cheats  for  his  master." 

I  tried  to  instruct  him,  and  all  my  people,  as  to  their 
duty  to  God  and  their  own  souls,  and,  I  hope,  not  without 
some  effect.  But  I  have  heard  from  that  old  negro  as 
many  and  as  astute  objections  to  the  revealed  word  as 
any  infidel  philosopher  ever  produced ;  and  it  is  my  firm 
belief  that  every  missionary  to  the  darkest  heathen  people 
will  sometimes  meet  this  experience.  These  objections, 
whether  in  Christian  or  pagan  lands,  probably  never  orig- 
inate in  the  human  heart.  They  are  suggestions  of  the 
devil. 

I  cannot  claim  that  I  fully  performed  my  religious 
duty  to  my  slaves,  but  I  tried  to  do  it.  I  was  constantly 
away  on  Sundays,  preaching  myself.  My  wife  continu- 
ally assembled  both  children  and  grown  people  on  Sunday 
afternoons  in  our  wide  piazzas,  reading  and  explaining 
the  Scriptures  to  them,  and  teaching  them  to  commit  to 
memory  verses  of  the  Bible,  and  many  of  our  best  hymns, 
and  to  sing  them  to  such  tunes  as  best  suited  their  musical 
taste.  Moreover,  my  brothers  and  I  employed  a  faithful, 
earnest  minister  to  preach  to  them  at  set  times  every 
week,  and  my  children  taught  all  of  them  to  read  who 
were  disposed  to  learn. 

When  Charles's  whole  family  moved  away  to  ^leniphis, 
he  was  not  willing  to  go  with  them,  nor  yet  dared  to  re- 
main in  Pendleton.  He  told  me  once  that  he  had  made 
many  enemies  to  himself  on  my  account.  It  was  cer- 
tainly true  that  he  was  not  popular  with  his  own  race. 
He  used  to  say  that  he  could  always  get  along  very  well 
with  white  people,  but  not,  he  would  add,  "with  the  col- 
ored popularity."  So  he  wanted  me  to  let  him  go  with 
me  to  Columbia.  That  city  Avas  in  ruins  then,  and  for  a 
good  Avhile  afterwards.  For  some  fifteen  miles  below  that 
place,  the  railroad  had  been  entirely  destroyed,  and  it  was 
a  good  while  before  it  could  be  rebuilt,  so  there  was  much 
hauling  of  goods  from  that  place  up  to  town.  I  agreed, 
therefore,  with  Charles  to  let  him  have  my  four  mules, 
and  a  big  wagon,  that  he  might  go  down,  do  some  of  this 
hauling,  and  make  something  for  himself  and  me  too. 
When  that  business  came  to  an  end,  he  found  other  work 


KEMIXTSCEXCES  OF  THE  WAR.  349 

in  Columl")ia,  but  he  had  trouble  with  his  own  color,  whom 
he  accused  of  robbing  him  of  all  that  he  made.  I  was 
frequently  called  a  war  for  days  together  on  seminary  bus- 
iness, and,  meanwhile,  my  family  were  still  remaining  in 
Pendleton.  On  one  of  these  occasions,  Charles  fell  sick 
and  died.  I  was  afterwards  told  by  my  cousin,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Boggs,  who  visited  him  in  his  sickness,  that  the  ne- 
groes, amongst  whom  he  died,  had  not  left  clothes  enough 
to  give  the  poor  old  man  a  decent  burial.  And  this  cousin 
said  that  many  times  during  his  last  sickness  he  called  for 
his  old  master. 

The  emancipation  of  my  negroes  was  a  pecuniary  loss 
to  me  of  some  twenty-five  thousand  dollars.  But  it  was, 
at  the  same  time,  my  deliverance  from  a  very  serious  and 
weighty  responsibility,  and  I  have  never  once  regretted 
the  emancipation.  Xor,  though  I  frequently  made  in- 
quiries of  men  on  this  subject,  did  I  ever  find  one  who 
said  he  was  sorry  that  it  had  taken  place. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Providential  Dealings — Full  Account  or  Revision. 

(Editorial  Note.) 

For  some  reason  the  work  of  preparing  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  ]\Iy  Life  and  Times  was  left  by  the  venerable 
author  to  be  the  last  of  his  work,  but  before  anything  had 
been  done  npon  it,  he  was  called  away. 

It  was  his  design,  as  we  understand  it,  that  this  chapter 
should  contain  a  full  account  of  that  important  work 
undertaken  by  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
very  beginning  of  its  history,  and  prosecuted  through  a 
series  of  years  until  completed  in  the  adoption  of  the 
BooJc  of  Church  Order,  embracing  the  "Form  of  Govern- 
ment" and  the  "Rules  of  Discipline."  This  work  was,  in 
one  sense,  a  revision  of  the  old  Form  of  Government ;  but 
it  embodies  certain  distinctive  principles,  and  the  history 
of  the  process  by  which  these  came  to  be  embodied  in  the 
organic  law  of  the  church,  is  one  of  intense  interest.  Xo 
one  was  better  qualified  to  give  the  history  of  this  work 
than  Dr.  Adger.  He  was  himself  an  active  participant 
in  the  labor  involved,  and  brought  to  that  labor  a  pro- 
found conviction  of  the  importance  of  the  principles 
which  entered  into  it,  and  great  earnestness  of  purpose  in 
reviewing  their  embodiment  in  our  organic  law.  It  is 
greatly  to  be  regretted  that  the  story  of  this  great  work, 
which  did  not  reach  its  completion  until  eighteen  years 
after  its  beginning,  could  not  have  been  a  part  of  this  vol- 
ume. Xo  one  is  now  left  to  us  who  was  so  closely  iden- 
tified with  it,  and  who  so  thoroughly  understood  it  in  all 
its  phases,  or  who  could  so  well  have  recorded  it  as  a  part 
of  the  history  of  our  church. 


CHAPTER  XII.— Part  1. 

The  Coxtkoversies  of  My  Times. 
1801-1861. 

THE  controversies  of  the  nineteenth  century  are  a  con- 
tinuation of  those  of  the  eighteenth  and  preceding 
centuries,  followed  bv  some  peculiar  to  itself. 

1.  The  controversy  with  sceptical  criticism,  which 
would  overthrow  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writings  by 
affirming  inspiration  of  the  sacred  ivriters,  only,  however, 
as  all  men  of  genius  are  inspired ;  which  would  make 
human  reason  the  a  priori  judge  of  divine  revelation; 
"which  would  undertake  to  eliminate  all  that  is  human 
out  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  which  reduces  to 
myth  or  legend,  or  allegory,  whatsoever  in  the  divine 
records  is  unpalatable  to  its  own  taste." 

2.  "The  controversy  wdth  ontology,  in  that  transcen- 
dental and  pantheistic  form  of  it  which  undertakes  to 
show  by  metaphysics  how  the  universe  must  have  been 
evolved  out  of  the  absolute  ;  how  the  infinite  becomes  real 
in  the  finite ;  how  one  is  made  all,  and  all  are  made  one ; 
how  God  alone  exists,  and  all  things  in  the  universe  are 
but  his  phenomena." 

3.  The  controversy  with  the  physical  sciences,  as,  in  the 
hands  of  some  of  their  devotees,  they  turn  against  the 
Christian  Scriptures,  and  seek  to  destroy  their  credi- 
bility. Geography  and  astronomy  furnish  specimens  of 
these  centuries  ago.  In  the  nineteenth  century,  geology 
and  evolution  of  new"  species  furnish  other  specimens. 
Such  controversies  as  these  form,  in  our  day,  the  battle 
ground  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity — a  battle  outside 
of,  and  against,  the  citadel  itself. 

But  besides  these  questions,  there  are  various  subjects 
of  controversy  amongst  the  professors  of  the  Christian 
faith  themselves. 

The  church  of  Rome  would  like  us  all  to  believe  that 
w^ithin  herself  all  is  peace  and  imity.  But  the  contrary 
is  very  well  kno^^^l  to  be  true.     Her  controversy,  however, 


352  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

with  Protestants  does  not  belong  to  the  nineteenth  century 
in  any  special  sense. 

Leaving,  therefore,  the  questions  which  divide  Protes- 
tants and  Roman  Catholics,  what  divides  the  Protestants 
of  Great  Britain  amongst  themselves  ?  It  is  questions  of 
dissent  and  of  conformity  with  the  Establishment.  And 
what  divides  the  Establishment  itself  ?  It  is  questions 
still  about  the  church,  between  the  Anglicans,  and  what 
they  call  the  Ultra-Protestants.  Pass  to  the  EiDisco- 
palians  of  this  country,  and  they  also  are  very  much 
engaged  in  the  discussion  of  church  questions  among 
themselves. 

Amongst  Congregationalists,  there  is  unquestionably  a 
firmer  and  more  earnest  faith  in  their  distinctive  views 
of  church  polity.  'No  "plan  of  union"  between  them  and 
any  body  of  Presbyterians  would  now  be  a  possibility  on 
their  side  any  more  than  on  the  other.  ISTevertheless,  on 
various  questions  of  theology  proper,  they  are  very  much 
divided. 

With  our  Baptist  brethren  in  the  United  States  the  in- 
crease of  denominational  zeal  is  exceedingly  manifest. 
Some  of  them  deny  that  Pedo-Baptist  societies,  or  those 
that  do  not  practise  immersion,  are  any  churches  at  all. 
The  English  Baptists  are  generally  more  liberal  on  these 
points.  One  important  event,  however,  has  occurred  in 
the  history  of  American  Baptists,  particularly  those 
dwelling  in  the  Southern  States.  They  have  been  induced 
to  accept  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  for  their 
own.  On  the  part  of  Presbyterians,  there  is,  we  believe, 
a  stronger  and  clearer  development  of  the  primitive  doc- 
trine of  the  church  memljership  of  infants,  even  when 
only  one  parent  is  a  church  member.  There  is  also 
amongst  Presbyterians  an  increasing  sense  of  the  essen- 
tially schismatic  position,  both  of  American  Baptists  and 
High  Church  Episcopalians — of  the  former  for  rending 
the  body  of  Christ  about  baptism,  of  the  latter  for  rend- 
ing it  about  ordination. 

Then,  as  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  there  was 
amongst  them  a  serious  controversy,  and  even  a  division 
took  place,  on  the  point  of  the  absence  of  any  direct  rep- 
resentation of  the  people  in  their  conference.    This,  I  be- 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  353 

lieve,  lias  been  healed :  1)ut  there  has  risen  a  controversy 
respecting  the  heretical  doctrine  of  immediate  and  perfect 
sanctification  in  this  life. 

Leaving,  again,  these  varions  qnestions  agitating  the 
different  evangelical  churches,  I  refer  to  a  more  general 
controversy,  the  millenarian,  -which  vet  is  clearly  a  ques- 
tion of  ecciesiology,  that  has  been,  and  still  is,  widespread, 
both  in  Europe  and  this  country. 

Another  question,  which  has  been  very  widely  and 
bitterly  discussed  in  this  century,  and  which,  in  its  most 
important  bearings,  is  a  question  of  ecciesiology,  is  that 
of  slavery.  For  never  did  they  touch  bottom  in  that  dis- 
cussion, until  they  inquired  whether  slaveholding  is  sin- 
ful, and  must  be  made  a  matter  of  church  discipline. 
Wherever  these  two  simple  questions  were  decided  in  the 
negative,  the  contention  maintained  by  the  slaveholder 
was  won;  the  fight  immediately  became  a  conflict,  not 
with  him,  but  Christianity  and  the  Bible,  and  the  struggle 
was  transferred  from  the  field  of  ecciesiology  to  that  of 
the  evidences. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  controversy  of  total  abstinence, 
and  some  others  like  it.  The  settlement  of  this  question 
upon  scripture  principles  always  determines  the  true 
limits  of  church  power,  as  well  as  defines  the  true  nature 
of  the  Christian  virtue  of  temperance. 

Thus  it  would  seem  to  be  true,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
that  the  controversies  of  this  nineteenth  century  have  been 
questions  about  the  church,  her  nature,  her  mission,  her 
functions,  her  powers,  her  ofiicers,  her  members.  The 
questions  have  not  been  about  points  of  abstract  princi- 
ple, nor  doctrines  of  systematic  divinity,  but  points  of 
church  order,  church  work,  church  discipline. 

!N^ow,  1  do  not  propose,  in  this  twelfth  chapter  of  My 
Life  and  Times,  to  discuss  any  of  these  questions  to  which 
I  have  referred.  What  I  attempt  is  certain  controversies 
confined  to  the  American  Presbyterian  church  during  this 
nineteenth  century.    I  commence  with 

The  Old  axd  iSTew  School  Coxteoversy. 
This  had  its  beginning  at  the  commencement  of  this 
century,  and  culminated  in  1837  and  1838.    The  leader  of 


354  MY  LIFE  A^'D  TIMES. 

this  eulniinatioii  was  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  who  was  or- 
dained to  the  ministry  in  1832.  The  Princeton  professors 
did  not  take  a  leading  part,  bnt  they  Avere  all  on  the  right 
side.  Theological  professors  do  not  generally  take  the  lead 
in  such  controversies ;  they  feel  unwilling  to  prejudice  the 
interests  of  their  institution.  It  is  just  so  with  presi- 
dents of  colleges  and  orphanages,  and  with  the  secretaries 
of  Assembly  boards  or  executive  committees.  They  are 
all  afraid  to  take  any  decided  part  in  questions  which 
divide  the  church.  Each  has  something  of  his  own  which 
he  is  very  liable  to  regard  more  than  the  interests  of  the 
whole  church.  Accordingly,  when  the  Assembly  w^as 
asked  to  establish  a  theological  seminary  at  Danville,  Ky., 
and  some  opposition  to  the  proposition  was  made  by  the 
friends  of  Princeton,  we  hear  Dr.  Breckinridge  saying 
in  true  Kentucky  style,  ''Yon  have  Princeton,  but  we 
want  a  thing  of  our  own  ;  if  you  w^on't  let  us  have  a  thing 
of  our  own,  we  will  come  here  and  take  your  thing  away 
from  you,  and  carry  it  out  to  Kentucky." 

The  controversy  in  question  was  the  fruit  of  a  com- 
promise between  Congregational  independency  and  Pres- 
byterianism.  The  Plan  of  Union,  entered  into  in  1801, 
allowed  churches  in  the  new  settlements,  chiefly  of  the 
Xorthwest,  w^hich  were  generally  composed  of  both  ele- 
ments, to  elect  pastors  from  either  denomination,  con- 
ducting their  discipline  according  to  either  Congrega- 
tional or  Presbyterian  principles,  as  the  majority  of  their 
members  might  determine.  Where  the  majority  were 
Presbyterians,  elders  might  rule ;  if  the  majority  of 
members  were  Congregationalists,  then  committeemen 
might  be  appointed  in  their  stead  ;  and,  when  appeals  had 
to  come  before  a  presbytery  these  committeemen  were 
allowed  all  the  rights  and  functions  of  ruling  elders.  And 
yet  none  of  these  committeemen  had  ever  been  required  to 
subscribe  any  symbols  of  faith.  Of  course,  it  is  easy  to 
see  that  the  result  must  be  a  hybrid  system,  both  as  to 
doctrine  and  church  order.  It  has  been  well  said  ''that 
churches,  presbyteries  and  synods  were  born  of  it,  all 
which,  like  Jacob's  cattle,  were  ring-streaked,  speckled, 
and  grizzled,"  the  product  was  Presbyterianism  and  Con- 
gregationalism, but  especially  the  latter.     The  Plan  of 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  355 

Union  was  paramonnt  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Presby- 
terian Chnrch.  From  the  very  natnre  of  things,  the  Laxer 
system  sniDerseded  the  stricter.  Then  also,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  laxity  of  doctrine  accompanied  indifference  to  or- 
der. Chnrch  government  and  chnrch  discipline  are  the 
necessary  bnhvarks  of  chnrch  doctrine,  and  it  is  the  Lord 
himself  who  has  thns  hedged  ronnd  for  their  protection 
the  truths  w^hich  he  has  revealed.  It  was  not  strange, 
therefore,  that  the  Plan  of  Union  freely  tolerated  errors 
in  doctrine.  The  dangerous  theological  speculations  which, 
at  this  period,  overran  Xew  England,  were  carried  by  the 
Congregational  missionaries  into  the  l^orthw^est,  and  very 
soon  the  most  fatal  departures  from  gospel  truth  spread 
all  over  the  churches  planted  there.  I  cannot  particular- 
ize, but  must  simply  affirm  that  the  very  foundations  of 
the  Westminster  standards  of  doctrine  were  thus  over- 
turned. But  for  a  fuller  and  very  trustworthy  account 
of  all  these  matters  the  reader  may  consult  Dr.  Samuel  J. 
Baird's  History  of  the  New  School,  or  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Dr.  Palmer's  admirable  volume,  Thorn  well's 
Life  and  Letters. 

Presbyterians  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  has  a  kingdom 
in  this  world,  which  is  his  church,  whose  constitution  and 
laws  he  has  distinctly  revealed  in  the  word.  This  church 
is  his  agency  for  the  gathering  and  edifying  of  his  people, 
and  for  the  propagation  of  the  faith  throughout  the  world. 
It  has  always  been  understood  by  real  Presb'\i:erians  that 
the  church  herself  is  to  do  the  work  for  which  she  was  in- 
stituted, instead  of  employing  voluntary  societies  to  act 
in  her  stead.  And  from  their  earliest  emigration  to  this 
country,  they  have,  so  far  as  able,  always  endeavored*  to 
act  out  this  belief. 

On  the  other  hand.  Independency,  from  the  incom- 
pleteness of  its  organization,  is  necessarily  compelled  to 
work  through  other  agencies  not  under  her  direct  author- 
ity. Hence  there  originated  amongst  the  individual  and 
separated  Christian  congregations  of  Xew  England  three 
great  voluntary  societies,  one  to  do  the  church's  work 
of  education,  a  second  her  work  of  home  missions,  and  a 
third  the  work  of  propagatine;  her  faith  abroad.  They 
were  Xew  England  societies,  but  they  chose  to  call  them- 


356  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

selves  the  American  Education  Society,  the  American 
Home  Mission  Society,  and  the  American  Board  of  Com- 
missioners for  Foreign  Missions,  popuhirlv  kno\ni  as  the 
A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 

I  would  not  ascribe  to  ambition  the  prefix  of  American 
by  these  societies  to  their  o"^^^l  proper  names.  The  Pil- 
grim Fathers  were  on  these  shores  long  before  the  Scotch- 
Irish  Presbyterians  came  in,  and  were  gro^vn  rich  and 
strong  while  these  later  pilgrims  and  strangers  were  still 
poor  and  weak.  It  was  quite  natural  for  jSTew  England 
to  consider  herself  the  whole  country,  and,  accordingly, 
to  claim  that  great  name  for  herself.  The  x\merican  Edu- 
cation Society,  founded  in  Boston  in  1815,  deserved  the 
respect  of  all  good  men,  and  very  soon  acquired  large  re- 
ceipts for  its  high  purpose  of  educating  young  men  for 
the  gospel  ministry.  Many  were  very  glad  to  buy  hon- 
orary membership  on  its  rolls  at  a  high  price  in  money. 
It  had  branch  societies  distributed  all  over  the  land,  and 
it  aspired  to  the  educating  of  ministers  for  the  w^hole 
country.  The  Presbyterians  were  not  able,  for  a  long 
time,  to  compete  with  this  society.  But  in  1818  they  or- 
ganized a  Presbyterian  Education  Society  in  Philadel- 
phia, "which  should  be  under  the  inspection  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  a  faithful  representative  of  the  whole 
denomination."  "But  the  foreign  influences,  which  had 
been  imported  into  the  body,  set  themselves  at  once  to 
counteract  the  policy  thus  indicated.  A  rival  organiza- 
tion was  instantly  created,  imder  a  similar  name,  which 
refused  to  acknowledge  Assembly  control,  and  soon  went 
over  bodily  to  the  American  Education  Society,  and  be- 
came its  active  instrument  in  promoting  its  ascendancy 
within  the  entire  limits  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Meanwhile,  the  church  board  languished  for  years,  by 
reason  of  this  opposition,  together  with  its  own  restricted 
powers  and  the  general  inefficiency  in  its  management, 
until  1831,  when  it  was  reorganized  under  the  charge  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Breckinridge  as  its  secretary.  Then  at 
once  it  sprang  into  vigor,  and  held  its  own  against  all 
rivalry,  until  the  hour  of  complete  deliverance  from  all 
this  thraldom  was  chimed  in  1837."  ^ 

*  Dr.  Baird's  History,  pp.  28.3-2!»2.  and  Tliornwcirs  Life  and 
Letters,  p.  200., 


THE  COXTEOVEKSIES  OF  MY  TIME8.  357 

As  to  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  it  should  be  stated  that  at  its 
first  organization,  in  1810,  Boston  and  its  surroundings, 
with  other  Xew  Enghand  towns  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  must 
have  far  excelled  any  other  portion  of  this  coast  as  to  in- 
tercourse with  foreign  nations.  ]^ew  York  itself,  at  that 
time,  had  very  small  pretentions.  The  hardy  sons  of  Xew 
England  were,  in  multitudes  of  cases,  born  seamen.  They 
not  only  carried  on  the  whale  fishery  in  the  South  Seas, 
but  the  commerce  of  those  States  was  by  them  extended 
far  and  wide,  and  their  ships  visited  various  foreign  na- 
tions. Meantime,  the  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterian  emigra- 
tion found  its  way  chiefly  inland  to  Pennsylvania  and 
Virginia,  and  thence  westward  and  southward.  They 
were  not  maritime  people.  Accordingly,  the  dwellers 
on  the  jSTew  England  coast  had  foreign  nations  much  more 
in  their  eye  and  in  their  thoughts  than  our  agricultural 
forefathers.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  'New  Eng- 
land Christians  should  precede  them  in  the  foreign  mis- 
sionary work. 

It  should  also  be  stated  that  the  A.  B.  C.  E.  M.  had  a 
remarkable  birth.  Eour  young  students  of  divinity,  men 
of  broad  intelligence  and  lofty  aspirations,  meeting  to- 
gether often  for  conference  and  prayer  about  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  behind  a  certain  hay-stack  in  some  j^ew  Eng- 
land field,  first  conceived  the  idea  of  becoming  mission- 
aries to  the  heathen.  They  it  was  who  stirred  up  their 
fathers  in  the  jSTew  England  ministry  to  form  the  A.  B.  C. 
E.  M. 

It  should  be  stated,  further,  that  not  very  long  after 
the  first  organization  of  this  ^ew  England  board,  its  cor- 
porate membership  is  found  to  include  a  number  of  prom- 
inent Presbyterian  ministers  in  jSTew  York  City  and  else- 
where. Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  the  Princeton  professor  of 
high  Presbyterian  reputation,  I  recall  to  mind, as  being 
one  of  these,  and  he  continued  such  until  about  1832  or 
1833. 

But  in  the  early  history  of  American  Presbyterianism 
the  church's  duty  of  doing,  in  her  organic  form,  this  work 
of  the  foreign  propagation  of  the  faith,  as  well  as  train- 
ing her  own  ministry,  had  been  clearly  recognized.  As 
early  as  1751,  a  collection  was  ordered  to  be  taken  each 


358  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

year  in  every  church,  to  send  the  gospel  to  the  heathen, 
and  upon  this  fund  David  Brainard  was  sustained  among 
the  Indians  until  his  death,  in  1781.  In  1802,  the  Synod 
of  Pittsburgh  resolved  itself  into  a  foreign  mission  so- 
ciety, with  a  regular  constitution  and  officers.  In  the 
same  year,  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  sent  two  mission- 
aries to  the  Xatchez  Indians,  and  one  to  the  Catawbas, 
conducting  the  work  through  a  commission  regularly  ap- 
pointed. At  the  same  period,  1802,  the  Assembly  ap- 
pointed a  standing  committee  of  foreign  missions.  Mean- 
while, various  local  foreign  mission  societies  had  sprung 
up,  all  subject  to  the  church.  In  1817,  the  subject  of  for- 
eign missions  came  again  before  the  Assembly,  the  result 
of  which  was  the  organization  of  the  "United  Foreign 
Mission  Society,"  composed  of  Presbyterian,  Eeformed 
Dutch,  and  Associate  Reformed  Churches,  receiving  the 
sanction  of  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  which  they  be- 
longed. For  eight  years  it  prosecuted  its  work  with  vigor, 
gradually  absorbing  all  the  local  societies.  How^ever,  in 
1824,  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  transferred  their  missions 
to  its  care,  supposing  it  would  continue  always  a  Presby- 
terian body.  Yet,  at  the  very  moment  of  this  transfer, 
negotiations  were  in  progress  with  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M., 
which  soon  absorbed  the  whole.  There  remained,  there- 
fore, to  the  Presbyterian  Church  no  Indian  missions  at 
all,  because  those  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  which 
date  back  to  1802,  had  already,  in  1818,  been  transferred 
to  the  American  Board. 

But  soon  the  Western  Foreign  Mission  Society  was 
revived  in  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh.  It  presented  itself 
to  the  Assembly  of  1832  for  recognition,  having  its  first 
missionaries  chosen,  and  their  field  to  be  Western  Africa. 
Three  years  afterwards,  that  is,  in  1835,  it  had  twenty 
missionaries  under  its  care,  laboring  in  western  Africa, 
northern  India,  and  among  several  Indian  tribes  at  home. 
Accordingly,  the  Assembly  now  began  negotiations  with 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  for  a  transfer  of  all  these  to  it- 
self. But  the  Assembly  of  1836,  under  imported  foreign 
influences,  receded  from  this  proposal.  Then  came  the 
glorious  period  of  1837  and  1838,  and  the  Revolution, 
which  forever  committed  our  church  to  carrying  on 
directlv  its  own  foreio-n  mission  work. 


THE  CON^TROVEESIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  359 

But  the  great  battle  between  the  two  uncongenial  par- 
ties united  together  in  1801,  resulted  from  their  work 
on  the  same  field  of  home  missions.  The  Presbyterians 
made  a  beginning  on  that  field  as  early  as  1802,  but  do^m 
to  1816,  tiie  date  of  the  first  establishment  of  their  Board 
of  Domestic  Missions,  their  efforts  were  crippled,  as  Dr. 
Palmer  expresses  it,  through  the  opposition  engendered 
by  what  should  rightly  be  called  the  ''Plan  of  Conten- 
tion," rather  than  the  "Plan  of  Union."  There  soon 
grew  up  out  of  this  opposition  what  was  called  the  United 
Domestic  Missionary  Society.  This,  in  1826,  resolved  it- 
self into  the  American  Home  Mission  Society,  which  was 
planned  in  a  meeting  of  delegates  from  the  Xew  England 
churches,  held  in  Boston  early  in  the  same  year.  Dr.  Ab- 
salom Peters  was  at  the  head  of  this  latter  institution,  and 
he  made  it  his  constant  effort  to  absorb  the  Presbyterian 
Board.  He  first  contrived  to  gain  over  to  his  views  Dr. 
Ezra  Stiles  Ely,  the  secretary  of  the  Assembly  Board  at 
Philadelphia,  and  these  two  soon  labored  together  for  the 
amalgamation  of  the  Presbyterian  Boards  and  the  Amer- 
ican Home  Mission  Society.  This  project  failing.  Dr. 
Absalom  Peters  next  endeavored  to  plant  a  branch  of  his 
society  in  the  West,  at  Cincinnati,  hoping  the  Assembly 
would  carry  on  its  work  in  the  West  through  this  branch 
as  a  common  agency.  His  design  was,  says  Dr.  Palmer, 
either  to  drive  the  Presbyterian  Church  out  of  the  West 
as  a  field  of  operations,  or  so  to  control  her  movements 
that  they  should  be  wholly  subordinate  to  the  interests  of 
Congregationalism.  At  length,  it  was  found  necessary, 
for  the  protection  of  Presbyterianism,  that  a  convention 
of  representatives  from  all  the  Western  Synods  should 
be  held  at  Cincinnati  in  ^N'ovember  of  1831.  Here  the 
question  at  issue  between  Congregationalism  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  was  definitely  settled  in  resolutions, 
to  the  entire  and  final  defeat  of  all  the  schemes  of  Dr. 
Absalom  Peters  and  the  American  Home  Mission  Society. 
The  convention  resolved  that  "it  is  inexpedient  to  propose 
any  change  in  the  General  Assembly's  mode  of  conducting 
domestic  missions,  fully  approving  of  that  now  in  such 
successful  operation ;  and  that  the  purity,  peace,  and 
prosperity  of  the   Presbyterian   Church  materially   de- 


300  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

pended  on  the  active  and  efficient  aid  -which  the  sessions 
and  presbyteries  under  its  care  may  afford  to  the  As- 
sembly's board.  Dr.  Palmer  says,  ''With  the  American 
Education  Society  to  train  a  ministry  in  lax  theology,  and 
with  the  American  Home  Mission  Society  to  distribute 
and  support  them  in  their  field  of  labor,  it  was  simply  a 
question  of  time  to  trample  the  Confession  of  Faith  in 
the  dust,  to  lay  prostrate  the  whole  constitution  and  or- 
der of  our  church,  and  to  render  the  entire  Presbyterian 
Church  a  bound  vassal  under  iSTew  England  theology  and 
jSTew  England  control. 

Such  were  the  vexatious  contentions,  both  as  to  doctrine 
and  j)olity,  with  which  the  so-called  Plan  of  Union  had 
tormented  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  more  than  thirty 
years.*  There  ensue  now  the  famous  trials  of  the  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes  for  heresy.  He  had  published  a  sermon 
in  1828  on  "^'The  Way  of  Salvation."  The  case  went  up 
from  the  presbytery,  through  the  synod,  to  the  i\.ssembly 
of  1831,  where  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes  was  only  cen- 
sured for  unguarded  and  objectionable  passages.  In 
1835  he  was  again  tried  on  the  charges  of  heresy,  brought 
by  Dr.  George  Junkin,  based  on  his  recently  published 
commentary  on  Romans.  The  case  reached  the  Assem- 
bly of  1836,  by  which  Mr.  Barnes  was  sustained.  An- 
other flagrant  outrage  by  that  Assembly  was  the  creation 
of  what  was  appropriately  designated  an  ''Elective  Af- 
finity Presbytery"  in  the  Synod  -of  Philadelphia,  and 
against  its  remonstrances.  This  consisted  of  a  company 
of  ministers  and  churches,  pointed  out  by  name,  thrown 
together  because  of  their  doctrinal  s^mipathies  and  irre- 
spective of  geographical  boundaries.  Then,  to  place  this 
body  beyond  the  reach  of  synodical  action,  it  was  erected, 
with  two  others  of  like  sentiment,  into  the  Synod  of  Dela- 
ware. Here  was  not  only  an  asylum  provided  for  men 
unsound  in  the  faith,  but  presbyteries  were  created  to 
license  candidates  who  would  everj'^vhere  else  be  rejected. 

In  the  year  1833  came  to  the  Assembly  a  memorial 
from  Ohio,  known  as  the  Western  Memorial,  testifying 

*  It  had  also  introduced  into  her  ministry  many  men  untrue  both 
to  her  doctrine  and  order. 


THE  COXTEOVEESIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  361 

against  nine  specified  doctrinal  errors,  and  urging  the 
repeal  of  the  Plan  of  Union  and  all  special  arrangements 
with  the  Congregational  churches.  During  the  session  of 
the  Assembly  of  1834,  the  famous  "Act  and  Testimony" 
was  drawn  up  by  the  pen  of  Kev.  Dr.  K.  J.  Breckinridge. 
This  paper  closed  with  a  recommendation  for  a  conven- 
tion, to  be  held  next  year.  This  convention  prepared  a 
memorial  to  the  Assembly  of  1835,  which  received  from 
it  a  measure  of  consideration,  and  raised  hopes  of  ulti- 
mate reform  excited  only  to  be  blasted ;  for  the  next  As- 
sembly, that  of  1836,  was  more  radical  than  any  that  had 
preceded.  This  was  the  Assembly  that  cleared  Mr. 
Barnes  of  heresy.  But,  in  1837,  for  the  first  time  in  sev- 
eral consecutive  years,  the  orthodox  party  found  itself  in 
a  small  majority.  The  business  of  reform  was  brought 
before  this  body  in  an  able  "Testimony  and  Memorial" 
from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Breckinridge,  making  sixteen  speci- 
fications as  to  false  doctrine  (which  the  reader  may  find 
in  Pahners  Life  of  Thornwell,  p.  195),  and  proposing  the 
immediate  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  the  discoun- 
tenancing of  the  American  Education  and  Home  Mission- 
ary Societies,  and  other  measures  of  like  character.  It 
was  then  carried  that,  by  this  abrogation,  the  four  Synods 
of  Utica,  Geneva,  Genessee,  and  Western  Reserve,  which 
were  founded  upon  this  platform,  are,  and  are  hereby,  de- 
clared to  be,  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America.  This  action  has  been 
assailed  as  uncoiistitutional.  But  the  Plan  of  Union  being 
established  simply  by  legislative  act,  it  could  equally  as 
well.  Dr.  Archibald  Alexander  maintained,  be  declared, 
by  legislative  act,  null  and  void.  Of  course,  the  platform 
on  which  they  stood,  being  taken  away,  the  presbyteries 
and  synods  which  stood  upon  it  fell  to  the  ground. 

"In  the  following  year,  1838,  commissioners  from  these 
exscinded  synods  presented  themselves  with  their  creden- 
tials. ISTo  sooner  had  the  opening  prayer  been  offered 
than  Dr.  Patton  arose,  with  certain  resolutions  in  his 
hand."  The  moderator,  Dr.  William  S.  Plumer,  pro- 
nounced him  out  of  order,  "since,  till  the  roll  was  made 
out  of  those  who  had  regular  commissions,  there  was  no 
house  to  hear  him."     Dr.  Patton  appealed  to  the  house. 


362  MY  I.IFE  AXD  TIDIES. 

The  moderator  ro])li(Ml,  "There  is  no  h«inse  to  a])]teal  to." 
Being  defeated  by  the  tact  and  firmness  of  tlie  moderator, 
the  only  resource  of  these  intrnders  was  to  attempt  their 
organization  of  an  Assembly,  by  a  loud  call,  from  Mr. 
Cleaveland,  in  the  body  of  the  honse,  upon  Dr.  jSTathan 
S.  S.  Beman  to  take  the  chair.  This  gentleman  stepped 
into  the  aisle,  "where,  in  the  utmost  confusion,  a  few 
questions  and  answers  were  spoken,  and  the  whole  party 
retired  to  organize  in  another  building.  "The  disrup- 
tion," says  Dr.  Balmer  (page  209),  "was  eifected.  The 
Old  and  jSTew  Schools  were  now  distinctly  apart,  and  those 
who  stood  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  in  a  strict 
interj)retation  of  her  symbols  of  doctrine  and  principles 
of  government,  rejoiced  in  a  great  deliverance." 

This  disruption  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  extended, 
more  or  less,  through  all  its  synods  and  all  its  presby- 
teries. It  divided  the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery, 
which  had  ordained  me  to  the  foreign  mission  work,  into 
two  bodies — one  the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery,  and 
the  other  the  Charleston  Presbytery.  This  latter  corres- 
ponded with  the  foreign  missionaries,  which  had  been 
sent  out,  to  know  on  which  side  they  would  stand.  My 
sympathies  and  opinions  had  always  been  strongly  on  the 
Old  School  side,  and  I,  therefore,  requested  to  be  enrolled 
with  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston. 

The  Board  Coxtroversy. 

Dr.  Palmer  well  remarks  that  there  was  left  over  a 
"residuary  bequest" — "a  sort  of  remainder" — from  the 
original  controversy  with  which  the  church  was  rent  in 
1837-'38.*  This  bequest  and  remainder  was  the  board 
controversy.  One  expression  which  he  uses  in  relation  to 
this  very  point  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood.  He  says, 
"During  the  period,  when  the  church  was  brought  under 
a  species  of  vassalage  to  Congregationalism,  the  great 
national  societies,  which  usurped  her  functions,  conducted 
their  operations  by  the  agency  of  boards.  The  church 
had  become  familiar  with  that  mode  of  action,"  etc.  jSTo 
one  will  deny  the  influence  of  Congregationalism  upon 

*  See  Life  and  Letters,  pp.  182-221. 


THE  CONTROVEBSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  363 

the  Presbyterian  Cliurcli,  esijecially  in  tliose  portions  of 
it  most  contigiions  to  Xew  England;  nor  that  in  the 
iN'orthwestern  wilderness,  where  the  American  Education 
Society  and  the  American  Home  Mission  Society  chiefly 
operated,  there  was  brought  about  a  vassalage  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  to  Congregationalism.  Of  course,  Dr. 
Palmer  did  not  mean  to  apply  his  remark  to  our  church  in 
all  its  parts  and  portions.  Xeither  is  he  to  be  understood 
as  meaning  that  our  whole  church  had  become  familiar 
with  that  mode  of  action  in  the  sense  of  becoming,  in  any 
degree,  satisfied  with  it.  The  sturdv  Scotch-Irish  Presbv- 
terians  of  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  the 
Carolinas,  who  constituted  the  bulk  of  our  Presbyterian 
Church  in  those  days,  had  been  educated  better  by  their 
fathers,  and  could  not  approve  the  mixing  up  of  the 
church  with  voluntary  associations.  They  tolerated  the 
Plan  of  Union,  but,  from  the  first,  they  did  not  like  it.  and 
it  was  influence  from  such  quarters  that  finally  overthrew 
it.  If  "boards,  exactly  analagous"  to  the  hybrid  ones, 
were  established,  it  was  not  the  work  of  these  real  Presby- 
terians. From  the  beginning,  Philadelphia  had  become 
the  centre  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country. 
Philadelphia  and  contiguous  parts  of  Pennsylvania  and 
Xew  Jersey,  together  with  large  portions  of  rural  Xew 
York,  had  long  felt  the  influence  of  their  near  neighbors, 
the  Congregationalists.  The  new  boards  all  centred  in 
Philadelphia,  and  their  leading  members,  as  well  as  those 
of  every  Assembly,  for  some  time,  came  largely  from  the 
districts  I  have  named.  The  Assembly  itself,  from  the 
beginning,  with  only  five  exceptions,  met  every  year  in 
Philadelphia,  until,  as  Dr.  Breckinridge  expressed  it, 
"we  got  it  set  on  wheels  in  IS-ii,"  and  it  came  thereby 
under  other  influences  than  those  of  "the  mother  city." 
It  will  hardly  be  maintained,  therefore,  that  our  church, 
as  a  whole,  had  l)ecome  familiar  with  action  through 
boards,  in  the  sense  of  being  fascinated  with  them,  when 
it  is  considered  that  in  less  than  two  years  after  the  abro- 
gation of  the  Plan  of  Union,  there  began  a  most  de- 
termined opposition  to  the  continuance  of  these  methods. 
When  Calvin  undertakes  to  state  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  church,  he  liegins,  first,  with  her  relation  to  God,  and 


3G4  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

then  her  relation  to  us.  "The  church  is  a  divine  institu- 
tion, an  external  help  to  nourish  the  faith  begotten  in  us. 
God  has  given  her  the  gospel  with  pastors  and  teachers. 
He  has  invested  them  with  authority.  He  has  omitted 
nothing  which  might  conduce  to  holv  consent  in  the  faith 
and  to  right  order."  Here  is  Jus  Divinum  Preshyterii. 
The  church  being  the  work  of  God's  hand,  let  no  man  dare 
essav  any  change  or  improvement  in  its  structure.  It  is 
incredible  that  God,  who  instituted  the  church,  should 
tolerate  any  human  alterations  in  it.  If  Christ  is  the 
Head  and  King,  we  must  let  him  rule  in  his  kingdom. 

As  to  the  church's  relation  to  us,  Calvin  says  that  scrip- 
ture makes  her  "our  mother."  Though  poj^ery  fatally, 
and  prelacy  too  much,  exaggerate  this  idea,  yet  Presbyte- 
rians make  far  too  little  of  the  church.  As  our  mother,  it 
is  hers  to  nourish  us  when  we  are  babes,  and  train  us  up 
to  be  adults  in  faith.  I  do  not  say  that  she  does  all  this, 
but  Calvin  is  certainly  right  in  maintaining  that  such  is 
our  Father's  design  in  instituting  the  churcli.  She  is  to 
be  a  mother  to  us,  and,  as  such,  to  be  revered  and  obeyed 
by  us  in  the  Lord.  The  authority  of  church  officers  and 
church  courts  is  not  from  the  people,  as  the  Congregation- 
alists  imagine.    It  is  put  upon  them  by  God. 

Of  the  power  given  of  God  to  the  church,  Calvin  makes 
three  departments — the  power  diatactic  or  legislative,  the 
power  diacritic  or  judicial,  and  the  power  dogmatic  or 
doctrinal.  Xow,  let  it  be  observed  that  of  legislative 
power  very  little  indeed  is  conferred  on  the  church. 
Jesus  Christ  stands  alone  as  King  in  his  kingdom.  Her 
officers  are  not  his  councillors,  but  only  his  servants,  ^ot 
a  law  can  the  church  make,  out  of  her  own  discretion,  ad- 
ditionally to  those  he  has  given  her.  She  is  permitted  to 
act  only  by  divine  command.  For  everything  set  up  by 
her  she  must  produce  a  "thus  saith  the  Lord."  In  the 
whole  sphere  of  religion,  whatever  is  not  commanded  is 
forbidden.  This  is  the  ground  of  the  great  Protestant 
maxim,  that  the  Bible  is  our  only,  and  our  sufficient, 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  ''The  whole  counsel  of  God 
concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's 
salvation,  faith  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  do\vn  in 
scripture,  or,  by  good  and  necessary  consequence,  may  be 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  365 

deduced  from  scripture,  unto  which  nothing  is,  at  any 
time,  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revehations  of  the 
Spirit  or  traditions  of  men."  Our  doctrine,  our  disci- 
pline, our  worship,  are  all  divine  and  revealed  things, 
to  which  the  church  can  add,  from  which  she  can  take 
away,  nothing.  jSTo  more  discretion  has  the  church  in 
regulating  those  who  compose  her  membership.  They 
are  the  free  sons  of  God,  and  she  cannot  bind  their  con- 
sciences. ISTeither  contrary  to  the  scriptures,  nor  yet  in 
addition  to  the  scriptures,  can  she  impose  any  new  duties 
not  imj)osed  on  men  by  the  word.  On  the  other  hand,  she 
cannot  make  anything  to  be  sinful  which  God  himself  has 
not,  in  his  holy  w^ord,  forbidden.  In  fine,  the  church  has 
no  legislative  power,  except  as  to  the  mere  circumstances 
of  time  and  place,  order  and  decency,  which,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  scripture  could  not  regulate,  and  which 
must  needs  be  left,  and  have  therefore  been  left,  to  hu- 
man discretion.  Kespecting  such  circumstances  as  these 
the  divine  law  is,  let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in 
order.  All  the  power  which  the  church  has  about  laws  is 
declarative  and  ministerial.  Her  officers  declare,  not 
their  own  will,  but  the  Lord's,  and  that  only  as  he  makes 
it  known  in  the  w^ord,  which  is  open  to  all  men,  and  which 
every  man  is  entitled  to  judge  of  and  interpret  for  himself. 
Such  are  the  principles  that  were  involved  in  the  board 
controversy.  Christ  being  sole  Head  and  King  of  his 
church,  having  given  to  her  all  the  officers  she  needs,  hav- 
ing revealed  to  them  in  what  way  they  were  to  carry  on 
her  work,  having  limited  her  obedience  to  those  things 
which  he  has  commanded,  and  what  he  has  not  com- 
manded being  therefore  forbidden,  his  church  was  to 
do  his  work  herself,  not  remit  it  to  any  voluntary  associa- 
tion. Still  further,  she  w'as  not  to  turn  it  over  to  any  or- 
ganized body  of  one  hundred  men  which  she  herself 
might  appoint.  She  was  to  be  herself  the  Lord's  agent, 
and  not  invent  new  agencies  through  which  she  might  act. 
Of  course,  the  church  herself  could  not  directly  execute 
her  Lord's  commands.  She  must  have  officers  or  agents, 
such  as  committees,  to  execute  her  work.  The  reader  will 
easily  perceive  the  fundamental  character  of  the  board 
question. 


3 GO  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

Under  the  Plan  uf  Union,  or,  more  properly,  of  Con- 
tention, Avhicli  lasted  for  thirty-six  years — that  is  to  say, 
from  1801-1837 — the  Presbyterian  Church  had  grown  to 
be  acenstomed  to  the  idea  of  church  action,  not  direct,  but 
through  appointed  boards.  When  the  church  was  lib- 
erated from  the  Plan  of  Union,  she  continued  to  act  upon 
this  same  idea.  Her  boards  of  foreign  and  domestic 
missions,  education,  etc.,  were  made  to  consist  each  of 
about  one  hundred  men,  usually  the  most  prominent  men 
in  the  church,  resident  all  over  her  territory,  from  north 
to  south  and  from  east  to  west.  It  was  not  expected  that 
these  dignitaries  would  be  able  to  leave  their  homes  and 
their  employments,  from  time  to  time — say,  every  month 
— and  repair,  at  great  expense  of  time  and  money,  to 
Philadelphia,  then  the  centre  of  the  church  and  the  seat 
of  these  boards.  Their  appointments  were  simply  hon- 
orary— honorary  to  the  individual  men,  and,  because  of 
their  individual  eminence,  honorary  to  the  cause  it  Avas 
expected  their  names  should  promote  and  advance.  It 
was  even  allowed  that  these  honors  might,  in  a  sense,  be 
purchased  with  money.  The  giver  of  one  hundred  dol- 
lars might  become,  not,  indeed,  a  voting  member,  but 
would  still  be  acknowledged  in  honor  of  his  gift  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  board.  To  have  his  name  entered  on  the  pub- 
lished list  with  those  of  so  many  great  and  eminent  per- 
sons, would  be  considered,  by  many  a  man  of  money,  an 
honor  not  dearly  purchased  at  the  price  of  one  hundred 
dollars.  Such  being  the  arrangement  made,  of  course 
very  few  of  the  voting  members  of  the  board  ever  at- 
tended its  annual  meetings.  There  was  an  executive  com- 
mittee of  each  of  these  boards,  its  members  residing 
either  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  or  within  easy  reach 
of  that  city,  and  these  i^ersons  were  the  actual  working 
members  of  each  board.  These  executive  committees  pre- 
pared their  annual  reports  to  their  respective  boards. 
The  boards,  so  far  as  they  were  ever  present,  would  hear, 
consider,  and  accept  these  reports,  and  then  they  would 
present  them  as  their  own  reports  of  whatever  had  l)een 
done,  to  the  General  Assembly. 

Manifestly,  these  boards  were  of  no  real  or  important 
good  use.     They  simply  stood  between  the  church  and  the 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  367 

Avork  that  was  committed  to  lier  hands.  The  executive 
committees  were  a  real,  and,  indeed,  indispensable,  in- 
strument, through  which  the  church  could  efficiently  oper- 
ate, and  was  operating.  But  the  boards  were  just  so  many 
encund^rances  in  the  way  of  the  church. 

It  was  in  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
meeting  in  the  city  of  AugTista  in  1840,  a  little  niore  than 
two  years  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Plan  of  Union  and 
its  machinery,  that  Dr.  Thornwell  first  publicly  assailed 
this  incongruous  system  of  boards.  He  submitted  a  doc- 
ument carefully  prepared  beforehand.  The  majority  re^ 
jected  his  paper,  his  views  being  sustained  by  only  a  very 
respectable  minority.  Forwarding  this  document  to  Dr. 
Breckinridge  for  publication  in  the  Baltimore  Literary 
and  Religious  2Iagazine,  he  says,  ^'I  believe  that  the 
boards  will  eventually  prove  our  masters,  unless  they  are 
crushed  in  their  infancy.  They  are  founded  upon  a 
radical  misconception  of  the  true  nature  and  extent  of 
ecclesiastical  power ;  and  they  can  only  be  defended  by 
running  into  the  principle,  against  which  the  Reformers 
protested,  and  for  which  the  Oxford  divines  are  now  zeal- 
ously contending."  What  he  means  is  that  the  inventors 
of  the  board  system  do  not  view  the  church  as,  strictly 
speaking,  a  divine  institution,  which  man  may  not  at- 
tempt to  mend ;  nor  do  they  understand  that  the  power 
of  the  church  is  limited  entirely  to  those  things  which 
God  has  commanded  her  to  do.  He  means  to  say  that  the 
Reformers  held  strictly  to  this  limitation  on  the  powers 
of  the  church.  He  means  that  the  Oxford  divines  were 
zealously  contending  for  the  church's  right  to  make  laws, 
devise  ceremonies,  appoint  saints'  days,  and  do  whatever 
seemed  to  her  advisable. 

Previously  to  the  synod's  meeting,  he  had  written,  in 
August,  1840,  to  the  Rev.  John  Douglas,  "I  am  satisfied 
that  there  is  a  dangerous  departure,  in  the  present  age 
of  bustle,  activity,  and  vain-glorious  enterprise,  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  institutions  which  Christ  has  established 
for  the  legitimate  action  of  the  church.  He  has  appointed 
one  set  of  instrumentalities,  and  ordained  one  kind  of 
agency  in  his  kingdom ;  but  we  have  made  void  his  com- 
mandments, in  order  to  establish  our  own  inventions.     I 


368  MY  -LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

believe  that  the  entire  system  of  voluntary  societies  and 
ecclesiastical  boards  for  religious  purposes,  is  fundamen- 
tally wrong.  The  church,  as  organized  by  her  Head,  is 
competent  to  do  all  that  he  requires  of  her.  He  has  fur- 
nished her  with  the  necessary  apparatus  of  means,  officers, 
and  institutions,  in  sessions,  presbyteries,  elders,  pastors, 
and  evangelists.  Let  us  take  Presbyterianism,  as  we  have 
it  described  in  our  Form  of  Government,  and  let  us  carry 
it  out  in  its  true  spirit,  and  we  shall  have  no  use  for  the 
sore  evil  of  incorporated  boards,  vested  funds,  and  trav- 
elling agencies.  If  it  is  wrong  to  hold  these  principles,  it 
was  certainly  wrong  to  lay  down  such  a  form  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church ;  and  if  we  do  not  intend  to  execute 
the  form,  let  us  cease  requiring  our  ministers  to  assent  to 
it.     Such  is  a  skeleton  of  my  views." 

Dr.  Thornwell's  article  in  the  Baltimore  magazine  was 
reviewed  by  Dr.  Smyth,  and  a  rejoinder  appeared  from 
Dr.  Thornwell  in  the  magazine. 

Writing  again  to  Dr.  Breckinridge,  January  17,  1842, 
he  says  that  evidentlj^  "the  first  principles  of  ecclesias- 
tical polity  are  not  clearly  understood  among  us.  The 
fundamental  fallacy  ...  is  that  the  church,  instead 
of  being  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  really 
one  of  his  counsellors  and  his  confidential  agent.  This 
rotten  principle  is  the  basis  of  the  whole  fabric  of  dis- 
cretionary power,  and  the  multitude  of  inventions  which 
have  sprung  from  human  prudence." 

This  controversy,  rising  into  public  notice  first  in  the 
Synod  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  occupied  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  until  its  very  last  Assembly,  at  Rochester,  X.  Y., 
in  1860.  There  it  gave  rise  to  a  very  great  debate,  and 
the  x^orthern  and  Southern  Presbyterian  Churches  spoke 
their  last  words  to  each  other  in  each  other's  presence. 
Each  had  its  representative.  The  advocates  of  boards 
were  largely  in  the  majority,  and  Avere  led  by  the  eminent, 
trusted,  and  beloved  Charles  Hodge,  educator,  in  part,  of 
many  hundreds  of  Presbyterian  ministers.  His  name  is 
known  and  revered  by  all  on  this  continent,  and  multi- 
tudes in  Europe.  The  majority,  which  he  led,  stood  on  its 
own  territoi-y,  far  up  Xorth  and  East,  in  the  State  of  New 


THE  COXTKOVEESIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  369 

York.  Dr.  Ilocloe  was  surrounded  b_v  a  multitude  of 
friends  and  admirers,  all  lending  him  their  support  and 
encouragement  for  every  word  that  he  uttered.  The  mi- 
nority had  for  their  representative  and  leader  James 
Henley  Thornwell.  He  had  a  few  friends  at  his  side,  all, 
like  him,  far  from  home,  in  an  unfamiliar  region.  To  by 
far  the  greater  part  of  those  who  heard  him  in  that  debate 
he  was  an  almost  unknown  stranger,  and  they  certainly 
were  strangers  to  him,  giving  him  no  looks  or  smiles  of 
encouragement.  But  before  that  debate  closed,  all  those 
strangers  had  found  out  luho,  and,  in  some  degree,  what 
this  stranger  was. 

The  question,  as  proposed  by  the  friends  of  the  l)oard 
(Dr.  Thornwell  accepting  the  form  in  which  they  put  it), 
was,  Is  it  expedient  to  make  any  organic  change  in  the 
organization  of  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions  ? 

Dr.  Thornwell  said,  ''It  is  not  very  long  since  the 
friends  of  this  system  insisted  that  the  difference  between 
ns  and  them  was  nominal,  mere  hair-splitting,  the  differ- 
ence merely  twixt  tweedle-dum  and  tweedle-dee.^  But 
it  is  now  admitted  that  the  difference  is  important,  it  is 
vital  and  essential,  the  things  at  stake  are  substance,  and 
not  shadow,  the  thing  that  was  declared  to  be  mere  ab- 
straction begins  to  be  viewed  as  something  very  danger- 
ous. Moderator,  I  accept  that  view  of  our  differences 
which  makes  them  real  and  important.  I  do  not  depre- 
cate this  discussion.  We  all  love  the  truth,  and  are 
equally  concerned  for  the  honor  of  Christ's  church.  We 
have  no  by-ends  to  subserve.  I  am  no  party  man,  but  I 
am  thoroughlv  a  Presbvterian.  I  wish  to  state  the 
grounds  upon  which  I  shall  cast  my  vote.  The  question 
before  us  is  but  an  offshoot  from  another  question.  Our 
differences  about  boards  spring  from  our  differences  as 
to  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the  church.  Some  of  us 
hold  that  God  gave  us  our  church  government  as  truly 
as  our  doctrine,  and  that  we  have  no  more  right  to  add  to 
the  one  than  to  the  other.  They  hold  that,  while  the 
church  may,  of  course,  employ  whatever  agency  is  really 
necessary  to  do  the  work  entrusted  to  her,  for  that  is  ini- 

*  Tliis  language  liad  been  publicly  used  by  Dr.  Hodge. 


370  MY  LIFE  AND  TIME!^. 

])lied  in  the  very  command  which  enjoins  her  duty,  yet 
she  has  no  right  to  create  a  new  church  court,  or  other 
body  of  whatever  name,  to  stand  in  her  place. 

''Others,  as  wise  and  as  good  men  as  the  first,  believe 
that  no  definite  form  of  church  government  is  given,  but 
God  has  left  it  to  man  to  organize  his  church,  just  as 
civil  government  was  ordained  of  God  in  general,  but 
man  is  left  to  arrange  the  particular  form  as  may,  in  his 
view,  best  suit  particular  circumstances.  In  like  manner, 
these  hold  in  respect  to  church  government :  God  gave 
only  general  principles,  and  man  is  to  work  out  of  them 
the  best  system  that  he  can.  The  first  party  hold  that  God 
gave  us  a  church ;  presbyteries  and  assemblies,  presbyters 
and  deacons — all  the  functionaries  necessary  to  a  com- 
plete organization  of  his  kingdom  upon  earth.  He  has 
revealed  an  order  as  well  as  a  faith.  Our  attitude,  in  the 
one  case,  is  to  hear  and  believe ;  in  the  other,  it  is  to  hear 
and  obey. 

''One  of  the  two  parties  represented  here  to-day,  ac- 
cepts the  motto,  'You  may  do  all  that  the  scriptures  do 
not  forbid ;  '  the  other,  'You  can  do  only  what  the  scrip- 
tures command.'  This  second  party,  whose  main  prin- 
ciple I  just  now  stated,  contends  that  man  is  not  to  be  the 
counsellor  of  God,  but  is  to  accept  the  church  as  it  comes 
from  God,  and  do  what  he  enjoins.  They  contend  that 
we  cannot  ajDpoint  a  coordinate  body  to  do  the  work  which 
God  appointed  his  church  to  do.  They  contend  that  the 
General  Assembly,  as  representative  of  the  church,  is,  and 
ought  to  be  held  to  be,  itself  the  board  of  missions.  They 
contend  for  the  great  principles  of  Presbyterian  Church 
order,  as  revealed  in  the  Bible.  The  oneness  of  the 
church,  its  federative  imity,  is  one  of  these  principles, 
but  another  is  the  representative  principle.  Upon  this 
principle  it  is  that  any  of  us  are  here,  and  upon  this  prin- 
ciple it  is  that  all  of  us  are  alike  here,  elders  as  well  as 
ministers,  all  upon  the  same  footing,  as  representatives  of 
the  church.  We  are  all  here  as  ruling  elders.  It  is  in 
this  capacity,  as  rulers  in  Christ's  kingdom,  that  all  the 
members  of  this  court  have  committed  to  them  for  the 
church  that  work  which  they  may  not  delegate  to  any 
other  body.     The  church  has  a  charter  of  faith  and  of 


THE  COXTKOVEKSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  371 

practice,  and  wherever  she  cannot  plead  the  authority  of 
God,  she  has  no  right  to  act.  She  has  no  opinion ;  she  has 
a  faith.  She  has  no  contrivances ;  she  has  a  law.  Her 
authority  is  all  ministerial  and  declarative.  She  only  de- 
clares the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  only  exercises  the  powers 
he  gives,  and  only  executes  the  work  he  enjoins.  2^o  other 
regulations  are  left  for  her  to  make  and  to  enforce  save 
those  of  circumstantial  details ;  and  the  power  to  make 
these  is  implicitly  contained  in  the  general  commands 
given  to  her.  It  is  also  explicitly  given  in  the  precept  to 
'do  all  things  decently  and  in  order.'  Whatever  executive 
agency  is  requisite  in  order  to  do  her  appointed  work  she 
can,  of  course,  employ ;  but  she  may  not  go  outside  of  this 
necessity,  and  transfer  her  work  to  another  body  to  be 
performed  by  it. 

"Xow,"  said  Dr.  Thornwell,  '"if  this  notion  of  church 
power  be  conceded;  if  we  correctly  apprehend  the  real 
nature  of  church  courts  as  divine  institutions,  and  if  we 
duly  conceive  of  the  solemnity  and  responsibility  of  all 
their  action,  then  we  are  prepared  to  see  how  all  this  bears 
upon  the  question  of  boards.  What,  then,  is  a  board — one 
of  our  boards,  a  board  of  our  Assembly,  as  distinguished 
from  a  simple  committee  ? 

"In  the  first  place,  it  is  an  organism,  and  not  an  organ. 
It  is  a  complete  body.  It  is  a  complete  whole.  It  has 
head,  body,  limbs,  hands,  tongue,  and  now  they  want  to 
give  it  feet.  It  has  a  president  for  its  head,  with  a  body 
of  many  members ;  it  has  an  executive  committee  for  its 
hands ;  and  now  our  brethren  propose,  by  a  travelling 
secretary,  to  give  it  feet  to  travel — to  travel  over  the 
whole  land.  Xow  wherein  does  this  church  body  differ 
from  a  church  court  i  Talk  of  this  as  a  mere  organ ! 
Talk  of  this  as  a  mere  hand !  It  is  a  hand  that  has  an 
arm  of  its  own,  and  a  head  of  its  own  to  direct  it.  It  is 
as  completely  a  moral  person  as  any  court  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  In  what,  I  ask,  does  it  diifer  from  a  synod 
or  a  presbytery  ?  You  say  the  board  is  responsible  to  the 
General  Assembly ;  so  is  a  synod.  You  say  a  breath  can 
annihilate  the  board ;  so  it  may  a  synod.  In  fact,  we  see 
the  board  standing  side  by  side  with  the  General  Assem- 
bly itself,  as  fully  officered,  as  complete  in  its  organiza- 


872  MY  LIFE  AND  TI^rES. 

tion,  and,  so  far  as  regards  its  component  nicml)crs,  more 
perpetual  in  its  existence. 

''In  the  second  place,  what  is  the  relation  to  the  Assem- 
bly of  the  boards,  as  thus  completely  organized?  They 
are  the  vicars  of  the  Assembly.  God  gave  the  church  a 
work  to  do  in  her  organized  capacity;  she  refuses  to  do 
that  work  in  that  organized  capacity,  but  appoints  another 
organization  to  do  it  in  its  organized  capacity.  The 
boards  are  the  representatives  of  the  church  in  its  organ- 
ized capacity.  This  is,  in  fact,  admitted  privately  by 
our  brethren,  for  they  hold  that  when  a  board  acts,  the 
Assembly  acts.  They  will  tell  you  the  boards  do  the  work 
of  the  Assembly  in  the  place  of  the  Assembly ;  and  they 
quote  the  maxim,  which  we  admit  to  be  applicable  here, 
Qui  facit  per  alium  facit  per  se.  But,  Moderator,  who 
gave  the  courts  of  the  church  a  right  to  act,  in  their  organ- 
ized capacity,  by  vicars,  or  'representatives'  ?  Congress 
has  power  to  make  certain  laws ;  can  Congress  delegate 
this  power  to  another  body  ? 

"In  the  third  place,  let  us  look  at  the  methods  of  action 
which  have  been  adopted  by  these  creations,  and  we  shall 
see  still  more  plainly  that  they  are  complete  organizations, 
and  also  that  they  work  evil,  and  not  good.  The  practical 
ends  of  the  boards  have  been  two — to  awaken  interest  and 
to  increase  funds.  As  to  the  first  end,  the  idea  was  that 
there  must  be  a  body  specially  devoted  to  aAvakening  the 
missionary  spirit  in  the  church.  The  missionary  spirit 
was  not  to  be  the  healthful  action  of  the  church's  life,  but 
something  substituted  for  it,  something  worked  up  in  the 
bosom  of  the  church  by  special  influences.  But  the  other 
end  to  be  gained  was  the  increase  of  funds.  This  was 
sought  to  be  attained  by  the  sale  of  these  distinctions. 
Sir,  it  has  been  my  lot  to  have  part  in  many  earnest  de- 
bates in  the  church  courts,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  was 
ever  yet  betrayed  into  saying  an  unkind  word  of  any  man 
in  the  church,  or  of  any  institution  in  the  church  I  was 
called  on  to  oppose.  But,  sir,  every  instinct  of  my  na- 
ture, and  every  holy  impulse  implanted  within  me  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  rises  up  with  indignation  and  horror 
against  this  principle  that  men  may  buy  places  of  honor 
and  trust  in  this  free,  glorious  commonwealth  of  Jesus 


THE  CONTROVEKSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  O  i  6 

Christ.  I  do  revolt  against  this  paid  membership,  this 
entitling'  of  men  for  money  to  become  consulting  members 
of  the  church  or  of  her  boards — which  they  tell  us  are  the 
same  thing — this  selling  distinctions  and  honors  in  the 
church  of  Christ  for  filthy  lucre,  when  nothing  is  plainer 
than  that  the  love  of  Christ  should  form  the  only  motive 
of  all  our  contributions.  Whatever  shall  be  the  result  of 
this  discussion.  Moderator,  were  it  in  my  power,  I  would 
at  least  expunge,  and,  utterly  and  forever,  blot  out  this 
organic  feature  of  our  present  system,  as  I  hope  God  will 
wash  out  the  sin  and  shame  of  it  in  the  blood  of  his  dear 
Son.  And  I  predict  that  the  time  is  not  far  off,  when 
the  church  shall,  with  a  whip  of  small  cords,  drive  out  all 
the  buyers  and  sellers  from  our  temple. 

"Such  is  the  scheme  of  the  boards  as  established  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  a  complete  system.  It  is  a 
church  by  men,  instead  of  a  church  by  God.  Moderator, 
I  have  confidence  in  the  men  who  control  our  boards,  and, 
whilst  in  their  hands  we  may  escape  the  more  serious  evils 
which  we  dread,  in  w^orse  hands  all  the  evils  which  we 
have  pointed  out  would  grow  worse.  The  egg  of  the  ser- 
pent is  harmless,  but  it  contains  a  serpent.  The  boards 
may  be  harmless  now,  but  they  contain  a  principle 
fraught  with  mischief  in  the  day  of  trial. 

"My  argimient  is  finished,  but  I  must  notice  objections. 
First,  our  brethren  say  we  must  not  have  innovations. 
Sir,  we  only  propose  a  return  to  Bible  principles  and 
Bible  practice.  Our  doctrine  is  as  old  as  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ment, our  plan  as  old  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  More- 
over, the  Assembly  has  of  late  virtually  decided  that  our 
principles  are  the  true  development  of  its  life.  At  the 
Xashville  Assembly  some  of  the  ablest  friends  of  boards 
advocated  a  new  one  for  church  extension,  but  the  idea  of 
a  simple  committee,  though  feebly  advocated,*  prevailed. 
Thus  the  Assembly  took  one  step  towards  what  we  pro- 
pose. 

"Secondly,  it  is  urged,  'Let  well  enough  alone.'  Oh! 
sir,  is  it  well  enough  ?    What  do  brethren  mean  ?    I  am  no 

*  The  "feeble  advocacy,"  as  Dr.  Thoriiwell  modestly  put  it,  was  his 
own.  "Some  of  the  ablest  friends  of  boards"  were  Drs.  Plumer  and. 
Boardman. 


374  ISIY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

accuser.  I  do  not  blame  the  l)oarcls.  They  have  clone 
what  they  could  with  this  stilT  and  cumbrous  organization. 
But  have  they  done  well  enough  ?  Can  any  man  say  that 
this  great  church,  in  any  department  of  its  work,  is  do- 
ing well  enough  ?  Oh !  sir,  when  I  think  of  eight  hundred 
perishing  millions  abroad,  and  of  the  moral  wastes  of  our 
own  country,  when  I  look  at  the  power  of  the  gospel  and 
the  Master's  blood  to  redeem  and  save,  and  then  think 
how  little  progress  has  been  made,  I  cannot  say,  'Let  well 
enough  alone.'  I  must  put  it  to  my  brethren,  is  it  well 
enough  ?  I  must  urge  this  church  to  inquire  if  she  be  not 
neglecting  some  power  God  has  given  her.  She  is  capa- 
ble of  far  higher  and  more  glorious  things,  and  I  want  her 
to  put  forth  her  own  living  hand  directly  to  this  work." 

Thus  Dr.  Thornwell  ended  with  a  thrilling  appeal,  such 
as  few  men  can  equal,  that  held  the  Asseml)ly  and  the 
thronged  galleries  in  breathless  attention,  while  he  sum- 
moned the  sacramental  host  of  God's  elect  to  rise  and 
march,  and  take  the  world  for  Jesus,  closing  with  amen 
and  amen ! 

In  reply,  Dr.  Hodge  complimented  the  eloquence  of 
Dr.  Thornwell,  but  professed  his  own  inability  to  see  the 
distinction  drawn  between  a  board  and  an  executive  com- 
mittee. Dr.  Thornwell  thought  the  diiference  radical. 
For  himself,  Dr.  Hodge  said,  snapping  the  thumb  and 
forefinger  of  his  right  hand  together,  I  do  not  think  it 
worth  that.  "We  cannot  receive,  and  our  church  has 
never  held,  the  High  Church  doctrines  aliout  organiza- 
tion, for  which  the  brethren  contend.  The  Spirit  of  God, 
dwelling  in  the  church  and  guiding  her  by  his  word  and 
providence,  must  shape  her  efforts  and  her  agencies,  so 
that,  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  far  more  is 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church  than  under  the  old 
economy.  But  now  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  that  a 
certain  form  of  church  government  and  order,  in  all  its 
details  and  with  all  its  appliances  for  the  evangelical 
work,  is  revealed  in  the  word,  and  that  we  are  as  much 
bound  to  receive  this  forui  as  to  receive  the  articles  of 
faith,  that  order  is  as  much  a  uiatter  of  revelation  as  faith. 
We  cannot  do  it,  and  we  Avill  not  do  it.  The  burden  was 
too  heavv  for  our  fathers,  and  wc  cannot  bear  it." 


THE  COXTEOVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  6  i  iJ 

Continuing,  Dr.  Hodge  described,  at  some  length,  the 
struggle  it  had  cost  the  church  to  get  her  work  of  dissem- 
inating the  gospel  at  home  and  abroad,  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  voluntary  societies,  so  as  to  entrust  it  to  a  board  of  her 
own  creation  and  control.  "Thus,  and  from  this  quarter, 
did  opposition  to  our  boards  first  arise ;  now  it  comes 
from  an  opposite  quarter.  Then  the  opposition  came  from 
Congregationalism.  jSTow  it  comes,  and  I  say  it  with 
great  respect  for  my  Brother  Thornwell,  from  hyper- 
hyper-hyper  High  Church  Presbvterianism.  Then  we 
were  told  that  all  power  is  from  the  people ;  now,  that  all 
power  is  lodged  in  the  clergy,  that  presbyters  are  all  of 
one  order,  all  pastors,  all  teachers,  all  rulers  ;  then  it  was 
the  distribution  of  power ;   now  of  centralization. 

"But  let  us  now  look  at  this  new  theory  of  church 
authority.  I  understand  it  to  be :  1,  That  Christ  has  or- 
dained a  system  of  church  government,  not  in  general 
principles,  but  in  all  its  details,  and  that  we  have  no  more 
right  to  create  a  new  office  than  a  new  doctrine,  or  a  new 
commandment  of  the  Decalogue,  unless  we  can  show  a 
'thus  saith  the  Lord'  for  it.  2,  That  power  inheres  in 
the  church,  and  cannot  be  delegated,  any  more  than  pray- 
ing or  giving  alms  can  be  done  by  proxy.  And,  3,  That 
all  power  is  joint,  as  opposed  to  several.  These  are  the 
green  withes  by  which  it  is  proposed  to  bind  the  limbs  of 
our  church ;  or  rather,  this  is  the  Delilah,  who  is  to  cut 
the  locks  of  our  Samson,  and  send  him,  shorn  of  his 
strength,  to  be  the  sport  of  the  Philistines.  ISTow,  sir,  our 
church  never  did  receive  this  yoke,  and  she  will  not  receive 
it.  We  believe  that  all  the  attributes  of  the  church  l)elong 
to  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  is  to  be  her  guide  by  his  word  and 
providence,  and,  under  the  general  principles  of  the  word, 
ministers,  elders,  and  people  are  to  do  the  work  of  the 
church,  according  to  their  best  judgment.  She  has  dis- 
cretion, sir,  she  cannot  be  bound. 

"In  opposition  to  this  theory,  I  have  been  taught  by 
lips  now  silent  in  the  grave,  but  vocal  in  the  General  As- 
sembly on  high,  and  I  will  never  forget  it,  nor  cease  to  de- 
fend it  while  life  and  being  last,  that  all  the  attriluites  and 
prerogatives  of  power  in  the  church  arise  from  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Spirit,  and  where  he  dwells  there  is  the 


376  :my  life  akd  times. 

cluireli,  Avitli  authority  to  do  its  o^ni  Avork  in  the  best 
way ;  and,  as  he  does  not  dwell  in  the  clergy  exclusively, 
therefore,  the  jDower  is  not  confined  to  the  clergy ;  but  the 
church  may,  in  her  discretion,  adopt  such  modes  or 
agencies  to  carry  out  the  commands  of  Christ  as  she  deems 
best.  She  must  be  free.  She  must  breathe.  The  power 
of  the  church  is  where  the  Holy  Ghost  is ;  but  in  exter- 
nals he  has  given  her  discretion.  I  glory,  as  much  as  does 
my  Brother  Thornwell,  in  the  principles  of  Presbyterian- 
ism,  but  one  of  those  principles,  and  a  most  important  one, 
is  freedom  in  that  which  the  Bible  leaves  to  the  discretion 
of  Christ's  i3eople.  We  must  not  forget  our  great  dis- 
tinctive principles :  First,  the  parity  of  the  clergy ;  sec- 
ondly, the  representative  element,  the  right  of  the  people 
to  take  part,  by  suffrage,  in  the  government  of  the  church, 
and,  indeed,  that  originally  the  power  is  deposited  with 
the  people  ;  and,  thirdly,  the  unity  of  the  church,  that  all 
its  members  are  parts  of  one  great  whole,  and  that  all  must 
suffer  and  labor  and  rejoice  together.  And  these  are  not 
compatible  with  the  new  theory.  But,  above  all,  the 
theory  is  utterly  unscriptural.  Let  any  man  open  the 
jSTew  Testament,  and  say  if  our  Form  of  Government  is 
there  as  our  faith  is  there !  Xo,  sir,  this  is  making  the 
scaffolding  to  hide  the  building;  it  is  making  the  body 
the  same  in  value  as  the  soul.  I  cannot  see  how  any  man 
can  say  that  all  the  details  of  our  system  are  in  the  Bible. 
The  Jewish  system,  in  all  its  details,  was  not  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Their  yoke  w^as  not  so  heavy  as  that  which 
these  brethren  would  bind  on  our  necks;  and  it  is  pre- 
posterous to  expect  that  so  heavy  a  yoke  can  be  received 
by  those  whom  Christ  has  made  free.  This  is  too  great 
a  burden ;  the  church  cannot  receive  it,  and  we  will  not 
receive  it.  Our  Christian  liberty  is  not  thus  to  be  put  in 
trammels.  The  shackles  are  worse  than  Jewish  that  they 
would  put  on  our  feet,  and  then  tell  us  to  go  over  hill  and 
dale,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  ]^o,  I  do 
not  find  their  system  in  the  Bible,  but  I  find  just  the 
opposite.  Where  are  our  apostles  and  prophets  ?  Sup- 
pose, Moderator,  that  Paul,  inspired  by  God  as  an  apostle, 
sat  in  your  seat !  What  would  he  care  for  our  Book  of 
Discipline,  or  our  Form  of  Government?     Who  would 


THE  COXTROVEESIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  3YY 

want  him  to  care  for  them  ?  He  would  ordain  whom  he 
pleased,  depose  whom  he  pleased,  deliver  to  Satan  whom 
he  pleased.  He  would  decide  everything  by  the  authority 
that  he  exercised  as  Christ's  plenipotentiary.  He  would 
wait  for  no  decisions  of  Assemblies. 

"But  this  burden  to  the  conscience — to  it  I  will  not  sub- 
mit. I  will  not  be  bound  to  a  form  of  organism  as  I  am 
to  the  faith  of  the  gospel.  I  will  not  submit  my  con- 
science to  the  inferences,  even  of  Dr.  Thornwell.  And 
yet  this  whole  theory,  which  we  are  called  upon  to  receive 
as  of  faith,  is  a  matter  of  inference.  I  will  not  submit  to 
anything  as  binding  on  my  conscience  that  does  not  come 
from  God's  own  lips.  The  Presbyterian  Church  will 
never  submit  as  long  as  there  is  one  drop  of  blood  of  her 
fathers  in  the  veins  of  her  children,  to  this  superlatively 
High-Church  order.  Will  you  have  deaconesses  because 
the  apostles  had  them  ? 

"And,  finally,  this  theory  is  suicidal.  How  are  you  to 
have  schools  and  colleges  and  theological  seminaries  if 
you  must  have  a  divine  warrant  for  them  all  ?  You  must 
abolish  all  agencies,  recall  your  missionaries,  go  yourself 
and  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist.  How  are  you  to  have 
a  board  of  directors  for  a  seminary,  or  even  a  president 
of  such  a  board  ?  How  are  the  brethren  able  to  serve 
under  such  boards  in  their  seminaries  ?  Can  you  find  any 
warrant  for  them  in  this  Bible  ?  Dr.  Thornwell  may  get 
it  out  by  an  inference,  but  I  cannot  find  it  there.  And, 
when  he  said  that  the  Church  Extension  Committee  is  the 
model  of  what  he  wants,  I  felt  as  if  a  soaring  angel  had 
fallen  dovm  to  earth. 

"If  these  principles  of  Dr.  Thornwell's  kill  the  boards, 
they  will  kill  the  committees,  which  our  brethren  would 
substitute  for  the  boards.  In  fact,  it  is  a  mere  question 
of  arithmetic — a  board  or  a  committee  ;  one  hundred  men 
or  twenty  men.  And  a  commission  amounts  to  the  same 
thing.  A  commission  and  a  committee !  Where  the  dif- 
ference, in  the  word  or  the  thing  ?  Xo,  no !  this  doctrine, 
carried  out,  instead  of  making  the  church  more  efficient, 
will  bring  her  efforts  to  a  dead  halt. 

"The  conscientiousness,  of  which  Dr.  Thornwell  so 
feelingly  speaks,  cannot  be  so  serious  a  thing  after  all, 


diH  MY  LIFE  A:ND  times. 

as  my  brotlicr  would  make  it.  It  is  a  long  time  since  he 
began  to  advocate  this  theory,  and  to  make  its  adoption  a 
matter  of  conscience.  Our  brethren  must  have  done  vio- 
lence to  their  consciences  for  a  long  time,  for  they  still 
work  with  our  boards,  and  cooperate  under  a  system  which 
does  such  violence  to  their  consciences. 

"But  there  is  another  ground  of  appeal  of  our  brethren 
that  ought  to  be  noticed.  They  understand  us  to  say  that 
there  is  but  a  small  difference  between  a  board  and  a  com- 
mittee. If  it  is  so  small  a  matter,  ask  they,  why  cannot 
you  give  it  up  ?  We  cannot  give  it  up  without  casting  re- 
proach upon  all  that  have  gone  before  us ;  we  cannot  give 
it  up  without  abandoning  the  past.  We  cannot  give  it  up 
without  yielding  to  pretensions  that  Ave  believe  to  be  un- 
authorized by  scripture.  We  cannot  give  it  up  without 
sacrificing  our  Christian  liberty  !  And  we  will  not  give  it 
up.  The  church  has  freedom  of  discretion  in  selecting 
the  modes  of  her  operation ;  and  to  sacrifice  this  freedom 
to  the  claims  of  a  high  jure  divino  churchism,  which  we 
do  not  believe  to  be  scriptural,  we  cannot  and  will  not 
consent." 

In  a  rejoinder  to  Dr.  Hodge's  remarks,  Dr.  Thornwell 
said,  "If  my  illustrious  brother  from  Princeton  had  writ- 
ten out  a  speech  to  deliver  before  the  Assembly  in  opposi- 
tion to  my  views,  he  could  not  possibly  have  wa'itten  one 
which  it  would  better  suit  me  to  answer  than  the  one  de- 
livered here  on  Saturday.  He  accepts  the  issues  which 
are  the  true  issues  in  this  case,  and  has  set  before  us  the 
type  of  Presbyterian! sm  of  which  the  boards  may  be 
regarded  as  the  natural  development.  There  is  a  little 
preliminary  skirmishing,  which  it  may  be  necessary  to 
notice  before  coming  to  the  main  issue,  and  to  that  let  us 
first  attend. 

"Dr.  Plodge  has  concluded,  from  my  principles,  that  I 
make  the  clergy  the  church.  I  am  amazed  at  the  charge, 
but  still  more  amazed  at  the  logic  which  sustains  it. 

"Again,  my  brother  has  said  that  my  principles  are 
hyper-hyper-hyper  High  Presbyterianism,  and  I  must  re- 
tort that  his  principles  are  no,  no,  no  Presbyterianism ; 
no,  no,  no  churchism.  His  speech,  sir,  presented  us  with 
a  little  touch  of  democracy,  a  little  touch  of  prelacy,  and 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  379 

a  considerable  slice  of  Quakerism,  but  no  Presbyterian- 
ism.  Surely,  sir.  Dr.  Hodge's  statement,  that  the  church 
is  found  wherever  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  cannot  be  taken 
without  much  qualification.  Does  not  the  Holy  Ghost 
often  dwell  in  the  heart  of  the  solitary  individual  ?  But 
the  church  is  an  ors-anism,  unitino-  manv  individuals  into 
one  bod}^ 

''Again,  the  good  brother  appeals  to  authority  for  sanc- 
tion to  his  views  of  boards.  We  can  appeal  to  fathers  too. 
There  have  been  martyrs  who  laid  down  their  lives  rather 
than  deny  the  divine  right  of  presbytery.  The  great 
author  of  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline,  and  many  others 
of  the  glorious  men  of  Scotland,  held  the  views  we  now 
maintain.  And  we  have  living  authorities,  too — among 
whom  is  one  who  has  no  superior  and  few  equals  in  either 
hemisphere — the  great  author  of  the  Act  and  Testimony, 
the  document  that  separated  this  church  from  error,  to 
whom  all  Presbyterians  are,  therefore,  under  everlasting- 
obligations.  But,  Moderator,  this  question  is  not  to  be 
settled  by  human  authority,  but  by  the  word  of  God. 

"Again,  my  brother  twits  me  with  supporting  the 
boards  while  professing  to  be  conscientiously  opposed  to 
the  principles  of  their  constitution.  Would  he  have  us 
to  be  factious  ?  Moderator,  I  never  have  said  to  my 
brethren,  to  whom  I  promised  submission  in  the  Lord, 
'I  cannot  submit,  I  will  not  submit.'  I  will  submit  to 
my  brethren,  even  where  I  think  they  are  mistaken,  if  the 
submission  be  not  sinful. 

"The  good  brother  complains  that  we  wish  to  lay  a 
heavier  yoke  than  the  Jewish  upon  his  neck.  The  burden 
we  want  to  impose  is  more  grievous  than  he  can  bear ;  he 
must  have  liberty.  Well,  sir,  what  we  bring  him  is,  first, 
God's  authority,  and,  secondly,  God's  giiidance ;  and 
these  constitute  our  notion  of  perfect  freedom. 

"The  idea  of  the  brother,  that  if  Paul  were  here  he 
would  pay  no  regard  to  this  church  court,  but  act  inde- 
pendently of  it,  upon  his  own  authority,  filled  me  with 
astonishment.  Paul  surelv  would  not  despise  order  nor 
contemn  the  authority  which  his  divine  Master  has  left  in 
his  church.  Sir,  we  claim  to  be  a  true  apostolic  church. 
Paul  is  here.     All  the  apostles  are  here.     We  have  the 


380  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

very  principles  they  inculcated,  and  the  very  order  they 
inaugurated — and  would  Paul  contemn  these  ? 

"But  I  made  the  good  brother's  remarks  the  occasion  of 
consulting  Paul  on  this  very  question  before  us,  and  I 
have  his  answer.  He  declares  (Ephesians  iv.  11)  that  the 
Lord,  as  his  ascension  gifts,  'gave  some  apostles,  and  some 
prophets,  and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and 
teachers,'  and  that  'God  has  set'  these  in  his  church,  and 
'appointed  helps  and  governments'  for  it. 

"Put  let  us  now  pass  to  the  main  issue :  the  Presbyte- 
rianism  of  my  brother  from  Princeton,  and  that  which 
we  hold  to  be  the  Presbvterianism  of  the  Bible  and  of 
our  constitution.  The  good  brother,  in  his  account  of 
church  government,  has  not  signalized  one  principal  ele- 
ment of  this  Presbyterianism.  He  named  (1)  the  parity 
of  the  clergy.  Why,  sir,  this  is  not  a  distinctive  feature 
of  Presbyterian  church  government.  All  the  evangelical 
sects,  except  the  Episcopal,  hold  to  that.  (2)  He  named 
the  authority  of  the  people.  Why,  sir,  that  also  is  not  dis- 
tinctive of  Presbyterianism.  The  Congregationalists 
hold  that  in  intenser  degree  than  we  do.  (3)  The  Doctor 
mentioned  the  unity  of  the  church.  And  is  that  pe- 
culiar to  us  ?  Why,  Rome  holds  that  with  a  vehemence 
we  do  not  put  forth !  Such  are  the  three  points  signal- 
ized by  the  brother  as  the  main  points  of  our  system. 
Look  at  them,  and  see  what  they  compose.  Is  that  Pres- 
byterianism— a  little  of  everything,  but  nothing  distinc- 
tive ? 

"Sir,  the  principles  which  really  distinguish  us  from 
other  evangelical  churches  are : 

"1.  The  principle  of  representative  government — of 
government  by  parliamentary  courts,  composed  of  pres- 
byters duly  appointed  and  ordained.  A  single  congrega- 
tion is  governed  by  the  parochial  presbytery ;  several 
associated  congregations  by  the  classical  presbytery ;  the 
whole  church,  by  a  presbytery  of  representative  presby- 
ters from  all  its  bounds.  This  is  the  first  element  that 
distinguishes  us  from  Congregationalists  and  from  pre- 
latists — government  not  by  individual  rulers,  but  assem- 
blies of  presbyters.  Do  we  ignore  the  people,  then  ?  Far 
from  it;   the  people  are  there  representatively;    they  are 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  381 

there  as  presbyters,  all  of  them  alike  being  men  whom 
they  have  chosen  to  represent  them. 

"2.  The  members  of  these  representative  assemblies 
must  be  of  two  classes,  belonging  to  the  one  order  of  pres- 
byters. All  of  them  belong  to  the  one  order  of  rulers,  and 
only  as  rulers,  chosen  rulers,  or  representatives  of  the 
people,  can  they  appear  in  these  courts.  But  they  are  of 
two  classes,  viz.,  (1)  presbyters  who  only  rule,  and  (2) 
presbyters  who  rule  and  also  labor  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine. This  gives  us  the  second  element  of  our  repre- 
sentative government,  and  answers  to  the  two  houses 
which  are  found  to  be  so  excellent  a  help  to  wise  and  safe 
legislation. 

"Presbyterians,  therefore,  hold  to  the  parity  of  the 
eldership,  not  only,  as  Dr.  Hodge  seems  to  think,  to  the 
parity  of  the  'clergy'  (that  is,  of  the  teaching  elders,  or 
ministers),  but  also  to  the  parity  of  all  presbyters,  as 
presbyters  or  rulers  of  the  Lord's  house.  I  take  my 
brother,  the  ruling  elder,  when  I  meet  him  in  any  church 
court,  by  the  hand  as  my  brother  and  my  peer.  As  pres- 
byters, as  members  of  any  presbytery,  from  the  lowest  to 
the  highest,  we  are  all  perfectly  equal  in  authority,  al- 
though some  of  us  have  another  function  or  office,  being 
ordained  to  labor  also  in  the  word  and  doctrine.  I  may 
here  refer  to  an  article  in  the  last  number  of  the  Prince- 
ton Review^  which  goes  to  abolish  and  overthrow,  alto- 
gether, the  office  of  the  ruling  elder,  and  this  Presbyterian 
doctrine  of  the  parity  of  all  presbyters. 

"3.  A  third  distinctive  feature  of  Presbyterian  church 
government  is  the  way  in  which  it  realizes  the  unity  of 
the  church.  It  realizes  this  idea  by  the  elasticity  of  its 
parliamentary  representative  system.  If  there  were  but 
one  congregation  on  earth,  its  session  would  be  the  parlia- 
ment of  the  whole  church ;  if  half  a  dozen,  the  representa- 
tives from  each  would  constitute  a  parliament  for  the 
whole  church;  if  a  still  larger  number,  the  same  results 
would  follow.  So  representatives  from  all  the  churches 
(or  from  the  smaller  parliaments,  which  is  the  same  prin- 
ciple) constitute  the  parliament  for  the  whole  church. 

"Only  two  churches  on  the  earth  realize  this  idea  of 
church  unitv — Eome  and  our  own  church.     But  these  are 


382  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tlic  poles  apart  as  to  the  system  by  which  they  realize  it. 
Kome,  with  her  infallible  pope  at  the  head,  and  with 
graded  authorities  extending  over  the  whole  earth,  one 
class  subservient  to  another,  and  all  to  the  pope,  secures  a 
terrible  unity,  binding  all  abjectly  to  a  single  throne. 
Our  system,  on  the  other  hand,  secures  unity  in  consis- 
tency with  the  most  perfect  freedom. 

"'Now,  look,  brethren,  at  the  Presbyterianism  advo- 
cated by  the  brother  from  Princeton,  and  then  at  that 
which  I  have  feebly  attempted  to  portray ;  'look  first  on 
this  picture,  and  then  look  on  that,'  and  say  which  of  them 
is  the  Presbyterianism  of  the  Bible,  which  is  your  Presby- 
terianism. 

"I  will  refer  to  one  more  point,  the  power  of  the  repre- 
sentative assemblies  of  rulers.  It  is  simply  'ministerial 
and  declarative.'  They  cannot  make  laws  for  God's  peo- 
ple ;  the}'  only  declare  and  administer  the  revealed  laws 
of  the  Lord's  house.  They  have  a  certain  commission 
entrusted  to  them,  and  no  power  beyond  what  is  necessary 
to  execute  that  commission.  Now,  in  the  organization  of 
our  boards,  there  is  allowed  a  power  beyond  what  the 
church  is  authorized  to  put  forth.  There  is  constituted  a 
society,  separate  from  the  church,  for  church  purposes. 
The  board  is  a  missionary  society  beyond  the  church,  out- 
side of  the  church,  a  distinct  organism,  and  our  executive 
committee  is  the  hand  of  this  society,  not  the  hand  of  the 
church.  The  board  is  not  the  executive  agent  of  the  As- 
sembly. It  is,  in  fact,  not  an  executive  agency  at  all. 
The  executive  committee  is  the  hand  of  the  board,  and  the 
board  stands  off  as  a  missionary  society,  and  to  it  the  ex- 
ecutive committee  reports.  Instead  of  creating  a  hand, 
and  an  executive  agency  of  the  Assembly,  we  created  a 
society,  in  imitation  of  the  American  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions,  or  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society,  and 
transferred  to  it  the  work  of  missions.  The  board  is  not 
expected  to  do  anything  but  appoint  the  executive  com- 
mittee, and  receive  its  report,  adopt  it,  and  then  report 
to  the  Assembly.  ISTow,  by  a  true  construction  of  our 
system,  the  General  Assembly  is  the  board  of  domestic 
missions.  The  executive  committee  ought  to  be  the  hand 
of  the  Assembly,  and  directly  responsible  to  it.     But  this 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  383 

is  not  the  case.  Another  organization,  a*  society  whose 
members  are  not  identical  with  the  members  of  the 
church,  and  Avhose  officers  are  not  church  officers,  is  inter- 
posed between  the  executive  agency  and  the  Assembly, 
Avhich  ought  to  control.  What,  then,  do  you  need  ?  To 
abolish  the  board,  and  have  the  General  Assembly  act  as 
the  board  of  missions  for  the  church,  or  rather,  the  church 
act  through  the  assembly.  I  care  not  for  the  name ;  let 
our  executive  agency  be  called  a  board  or  a  committee,  no 
matter.  But,  let  it  be  the  hand  of  the  church  to  collect 
and  disburse  her  benefactions  and  do  her  work.  What 
lias  a  board  ever  done  ''i  You  see  from  this  year's  report  of 
the  board  it  does  nothing.  Many  of  its  members  never 
attend.  Many  do  not  know  they  are  members,  and  others 
do  not  care.  Its  meetings  are  mere  matters  of  form.  The 
board  relies  on  the  Assembly,  and  the  Assembly  relies  on 
the  board,  and  supervision  is  defeated. 

"When  you  lay  down  the  proposition  that  the  church  is 
'the  missionary  agency,  you  make  every  church  member  a 
member,  and  lay  upon  him  the  responsibility  of  doing  his 
duty.  Under  our  present  organization,  we  know  that  is 
not  felt. 

"Moderator,  I  have  now  discharged,  according  to  my 
ability,  a  solemn  public  duty.  I  have  stood  up  for  prin- 
ciples that  I  solemnly  believe  to  be  fundamental  in  our 
system,  and  of  incalculable  importance  to  the  welfare  and 
advancement  of  our  glorious  cause.  I  love  the  Avhole 
catholic  church ;  but  I  love  the  Presbyterian  Church  with 
a  fervor  and  a  devotion  which  I  cannot  utter,  and  I  do  de- 
sire to  see  her  put  in  that  position  that  I  believe  she  must 
occupy,  in  order  to  the  accomplishment  of  her  mission  in 
pouring  the  blessings  of  peace  and  salvation  upon  our 
whole  land,  and  upon  the  nations.  I  want  the  church  to 
come  up  to  this  mission  in  her  own  proper  organization, 
with  her  own  officers,  and  in  her  own  power,  executing 
her  commissions  herself,  without  delegating  to  any  out- 
side organism  those  functions  and  duties  to  perform, 
which  is  her  higliest  glory.  When  they  ask  the  people  to 
contribute,  let  her  ministers  speak,  not  in  the  name  of  this 
board  or  that  board,  but  in  the  name  of  Zion  and  her  glori- 
ous king.     Let  them  ever  press  the  idea  that  it  is  not  the 


384  MY  T.IFE  AND  TTAfES. 

cause  of  a  board  of  human  ci-eatiou,  hut  of  the  blood- 
bought  church  and  her  exalted  Head." 

Subsequently,  Dr.  Hodge  said  that  he  rose  reluctantly. 
He  rose  rather  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  friends  and 
brethren,  than  by  the  impulse  of  his  own  mind;  but  it 
was,  perhaps,  due  to  himself  and  his  position  to  say  a 
word  or  two.  On  Saturday  last,  in  what  he  said,  there 
occurred  three  sentences,  which  Dr.  Thornwell  had  held 
up  sometimes  in  a  ludicrous,  sometimes  in  a  portentous 
light,  and  out  of  them  had  constructed  and  attributed  to 
him  a  theory  of  church  government  which  he  utterly  re- 
pudiated, ile  held  no  such  theory.  If  Dr.  Thornwell's 
was  the  sentiment  of  this  house,  then  he  was  unworthy  to 
hold,  at  the  hands  of  this  Assembly,  the  place  in  which 
he  had  labored  for  almost  forty  years.  "Permit  me,  Mr. 
Moderator,  to  state,  in  very  few  words,  what  my  theory  of 
Presbyterianism  is.    It  involves  the  following  principles : 

"1.  That  all  the  attributes  and  prerogatives  of  the 
church  of  God  on  earth  are  derived  from  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"2.  Consequently,  that  the  prerogatives  of  the  church 
belong,  in  the  first  instance,  in  sensu  primo,  to  the  people, 
and  not  exclusively  to  the  clergy.  This  is  the  great  dis- 
tinctive principle  of  Protestantism. 

"'S.  That  these  prerogatives  are  to  be  exercised,  through 
the  organs,  and,  according  to  the  rules,  prescribed  in  the 
word  of  God. 

"4.  That  the  Holy  Spirit,  dwelling  in  all  the  children 
of  God,  making  them  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus,  distributes 
gifts  to  each  one  severally  as  he  wills.  To  one  he  gives 
the  gifts  of  an  apostle,  to  another  those  of  a  prophet,  to 
another  those  of  a  teacher,  to  another  those  of  ruling,  etc. 

"5.  That  of  these  organs  or  officers  of  the  apostolic 
church,  some  were  intended  to  be  permanent,  others  tem- 
porary. The  criteria  for  discriminating  between  the  per- 
manent and  temporary  offices  are :  ( 1 )  The  nature  of  the 
gifts  involved  in  them.  It  was  plenary  revelation  and 
inspiration  which  constituted  an  apostle.  If  that  gift  has 
ceased,  the  office  has  ceased.  It  was  occasional  inspira- 
tion which  constituted  a  prophet;   if  that  gift  is  no  longer 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  385 

granted,  we  have  no  longer  a  class  of  living  prophets.  (2) 
When  there  is  an  express  command  that  a  given  office 
should  be  continued;  or  (3)  When  the  qualifications, 
which  are  to  be  required  in  candidates  for  the  office,  are 
prescribed,  then  the  office  is  permanent.  (4)  And,  finally, 
when  it  can  be  proved,  historically,  that  an  office  has,  in 
fact,  been  continued  from  the  apostolic  through  all  suc- 
ceeding ages. 

"6.  That  the  officers,  thus  ascertained  to  be  permanent, 
are  ministers  of  the  word,  ruling  elders,  and  deacons. 

"7.  That,  as  there  is  no  class  of  officers  above  the  pres- 
byters, no  gifts  higher  than  those  which  constitute  a 
minister  of  the  word,  presbyters  are  the  highest  perma- 
nent officers  of  the  church,  and  stand  all  on  the  same  level ; 
all  have  the  same  office  and  the  same  prerogatives.  This 
is  the  parity  of  the  clergy.  There  are  no  apostles,  no 
prophets,  and,  of  course,  no  prelates. 

''8.  That  the  right  of  the  people,  to  take  part  in  the 
government  of  the  church,  is  exercised  through  their  rep- 
resentatives, the  ruling  elders.  Here  is  the  principle  of 
representation,  and  here  is  the  foundation  of  the  peculiar 
character  of  our  church  courts.  They  are  composed  of 
two  elements,  a  lay  and  clerical,  ministers  and  elders. 
This  representation  of  the  people  is,  first,  in  the  session, 
then  in  the  presbytery,  then  in  the  synod,  and  then  in 
the  General  Assembly.  In  all,  the  elders  have  the  same 
right  with  the  ministers  to  participate  in  the  exercise  of 
all  the  powers  of  the  church — executive,  legislative,  and 
judicial.  They  are  in  our  courts,  not  by  courtesy,  not  by 
human  ordinance,  but  by  divine  right. 

"9.  That,  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  dwelling  in  all  believers, 
makes  them  one  body ;  as  the  "  command  to  obey  our 
brethren  in  the  Lord  is  not  limited  to  those  brethren  who 
may  belong  to  the  same  congregation  with  ourselves ;  as  it 
is  not  founded  on  mere  proximity,  nor  on  any  mutual  cov- 
enant, but  on  the  fact  that  they  are  our  brethren,  in  whom 
the  Spirit  dwells,  therefore,  the  church  is  one ;  therefore, 
a  smaller  part  is  subject  to  a  larger,  a  larger  to  the  whole, 
a  session  to  the  presbytery,  a  presbytery  to  the  synod,  and 
the  synods  to  the  General  Assembly. 

"This  is  my  Presbyterianism.    T  am  not  ashamed  of  it. 


386  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

I  am  willing  to  avow  it  here  and  elsewhere,  and  stand  or 
fall  by  it.""^ 

Such  Avas  the  great  debate  at  Rochester,  IST.  Y.,  on  the 
board  question,  between  the  respective  representatives  of 
what  was  soon  to  become  the  Northern  Presbyterian 
Church  and  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
question  debated  was  in  this  form :  ''-Resolved,  That  it  is 
inexpedient  to  make  any  organic  change  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions."  It  is  always 
an  awkward  thing  to  debate  a  negative  proposition,  and  so 
it  is  always  both  awkward  and  confusing  to  vote  upon  a 
resolution  that  is  at  once  negative  and  equivocal.  ISTever- 
theless,  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  preferred  that  form 
of  the  question,  and  the  minority  yielded  to  them  this 
great  advantage.  So  the  vote  stood,  yeas,  234;  nays,  56. 
But  this  vote  did  not  fairly  exhibit  the  real  state  of 
opinion  in  the  Assembly,  which  is  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  subsequent  action  of  the  body  in  resolutions  adopted 
in  order  to  conform  the  boards  to  the  views  and  wishes  of 
the  minority. 

The  first  of  these  required  every  member  of  the  board 
to  be  made  aware  of  his  membership  by  a  formal  letter 
from  the  secretary,  and  also  to  be  informed  of  the  times 
of  the  regular  meetings  of  the  board ;  and  also,  when  a 
special  meeting  Avas  required,  of  the  date  and  business  of 
the  proposed  meeting. 

The  second  required  every  board  to  send  up  to  the  As- 
sembly, with  its  annual  report,  its  own  book  of  minutes, 
and  also  the  minutes  of  its  executive  committee's  meetings 
for  the  examination  of  the  Assembly. 

The  third  made  it  unlawful  to  issue  honorary  member- 
ships for  money. 

The  fourth  refused,  by  a  large  majority,  to  appoint  any 
travelling  secretary. 

Besides  these  resolutions,  which  wore  adopted  by  the 
Assembly,  there  was  a  motion,  by  the  Hon.  eludge  Lord, 
of  Oswego,  to  reduce  the  number  of  the  board  one-half, 
namely,  from  ninety-six  to  forty-eight  members,  but,  on 
the  plea  that  many  members  of  the  Assembly  had  already 
departed,  the  dissolution  of  the  body  being  so  near  at 
hand,  this  motion  was  laid  on  the  table. 


THE  CO]!*fTKOVEESIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  387 

Let  it  also  be  observed  that  after  the  war,  the  Okl  and 
Xew  School  Assemblies  were  reunited  at  the  ISTorth,  and 
that,  upon  this  event,  there  was  a  total  revolution  of  the 
board  system,  and,  while  the  name  of  board  was  retained, 
it  came  to  be  the  very  executive  committee  of  some  twelve 
or  fifteen  members,  for  which  the  minority  had  con- 
tended. 

Finally,  Dr.  Hodge,  evidently  much  dissatisfied  with 
the  efiiciency  of  his  argument  at  Rochester,  notwithstand- 
ing he  was  sustained  by  the  majority,  went  home  and  re- 
newed the  discussion  in  written  form  in  the  pages  of  the 
Princeton  Review.  Dr.  Thornwell,  immediately  after 
the  Assembly,  had  gone  to  Europe  for  the  summer.  On 
his  return,  finding  that  Dr.  Hodge  had  reopened  the  de- 
bate through  the  press,  and  being  himself  master  both  of 
written  and  spoken  words,  replied  through  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review  of  January,  1861.  The  reader  will 
find  Dr.  Hodge's  written  argument  in  the  fourth  volume 
of  ThornweU's  Collected  Writings,  where  we  have  also 
given  place  to  Dr.  Smyth's  defence  of  church  boards. 

The  Eldek  Controversy. 

If  the  board  controversy  was  a  sort  of  remainder  from 
the  original  controversy  between  the  Old  and  the  ISTew 
School  Presbyterians,  so  also  did  the  elder  controversy 
necessarily  follow  that  about  the  boards.  This  subject  of 
the  ruling  elder  first  came  before  the  Assembly  of  1842, 
I  know  not  how,  and  was  passed  over  as  unfinished  busi- 
ness to  the  next.  The  Assembly  of  1843  took  up  this  un- 
finished business,  but  the  discussion  which  followed 
evinced  great  confusion  in  the  minds  of  the  speakers  gen- 
erally on  both  sides.  It  was  finally  resolved  that  ^'any 
three  ministers  constitute  a  legal  quorum  of  a  presbytery 
without  the  presence  of  any  ruling  elder,"  and  also  "that 
ruling  elders  may  not  join  with  ministers  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  a  minister."  Respecting  this  decision  of  the  As- 
sembly, Breckinridge  writes  to  his  friend,  Thornwell,  in 
July,  1843,  expressing  his  "distress  and  mortification  at 
the  result  of  the  matter  about  ruling  elders,  in  the  last 
Assembly."  He  says,  "I  knew  the  church  was  not  ready 
for  the  question ;    but  I  had  no  conception  of  the  extent 


388  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

of  its  ignorance  and  false  principles.  I  had  no  hand  in 
bringing  on  the  question  there,  none  in  bringing  it  up; 
and  desired  its  discussion  put  off.  Last  year  (1842), 
when  I  was  in  the  Assembly,  they  put  it  off,  rather  than 
hear  me  on  it ;  this  year  they  would  not  hear  of  delay." 
But  in  the  fall  of  1843,  he  delivered  before  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  in  Baltimore,  two  masterly  arguments  on 
the  two  points,  so  unhappily  decided  by  the  previous  As- 
sembly. 'J^hese  great  speeches  were,  of  course,  thoroughly 
prepared  beforehand,  but  they  were  speeches  indeed,  not 
written  out  and  memorized.  In  a  letter  to  his  friend,  of 
date  JSTovember  27th,  he  says,  "I  have  been  very  busy  for 
the  last  two  weeks,  in  all  odd  times,  writing  out  my  argu- 
ment, delivered  before  our  Synod,  on  the  quorum  of  a 
presbytery ;  and  am  about  to  write  out  that  on  the  ques- 
tion of  ordination."  He  adds,  "I  have  written  them  out 
at  the  request  of  the  large  majority  of  the  ruling  elders 
of  this  city  (Baltimore).  I  consider  the  whole  question 
of  church  order  involved  in  the  two  propositions,  and  treat 
them  accordingly ;  for  if  jurisdiction  or  ordination  be  in 
the  hands  of  preachers,  as  preachers,  there  is  an  end  of 
Presbyterianism."  These  arguments  subsequently  ap- 
peared in  The  Presbyterian,  a  paper  published  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  a  very  large  edition  was  put  forth  in  pam- 
phlet form,  with  the  significant  title,  "Presbyterian  Gov- 
ernment not  a  Hierarchy,  but  a  Commonwealth,  and  Pres- 
byterian Ordination  not  a  Charm,  but  an  Act  of  Govern- 
ment." They  are  not  now  accessible  to  students  of  this 
subject — would  that  they  were  !  But  Dr.  Thornwell's  re- 
view of  them  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol. 
II. J  makes  frequent  quotations,  and  will  give  any  reader 
an  idea  of  their  value,  and  this  review  may  be  found  in 
the  fourth  volume  of  ThorniuelV s  Collected  Writings. 
Thus  it  came  to  pass  that,  as  Dr.  Thornwell  first  brought 
on  the  controversy  about  boards  at  Augusta,  in  1840,  so 
it  may  be  properly  stated  that  his  eminent  friend  made, 
b}^  these  two  arguments,  the  real  beginning  of  the  con- 
troversy on  the  ruling  eldership  question. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  considers  the  whole  question  of 
church  order  involved  in  his  two  propositions.  Dr. 
Palmer  says,  "They  go  to  the  very  core  of  our  Presby- 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  389 

terian  system;"  and  the  discussion  upon  them  was  far 
more  earnest  and  long  continued  than  that  previously 
maintained  on  the  subject  of  boards.  It  has  resulted,  so 
far  as  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  is  concerned,  in 
the  complete  establishment  of  sound  scriptural  views  re- 
specting the  matter. 

These  speeches  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  are  not  before  me, 
and  they  are,  in  fact,  out  of  print ;  but  I  remember  well, 
having  carefully  studied  them,  how  elaborate,  instructive, 
satisfactory,  as  well  as  eloquent,  they  are.  But  they  oc- 
cupy many  pages,  and  Dr.  Thornwell's  review  of  them 
extends  through  seventy  more.  I  make  no  attempt  to 
present  to  the  reader  in  full  the  contents  of  this  very 
learned  and  luminous  review.  I  endeavor  only  a  very 
brief  account  of  the  way  in  which  he  presents  the  argu- 
ment of  his  friend,  and  then  proceeds  to  add  thereto  some- 
what fully  his  own  views  of  the  subject.  "The  General 
Assembly  decided  that  three  ministers  of  any  presbytery 
will  constitute  its  quorum^ ;  Dr.  Breckinridge  maintains 
that  no  court  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  can  be  regularly, 
legally,  or  completely  constituted  without  the  presence 
of  ruling  elders  as  members  thereof.  The  question  is  not 
as  to  the  essential  being  of  a  presbytery,  but  as  to  its 
regularity,  legality,  and  completeness.  Ministers  prop- 
erly ordained  are  presbyters ;  a  presbytery  is  a  college  of 
presbyters ;  therefore,  a  presbytery,  in  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances, may  be  composed  exclusively  of  ministers. 
On  the  same  principle,  as  ruling  elders,  according  to  the 
scriptures,  are  presbyters,  and,  as  a  presbytery  is  nothing 
but  a  college  of  presbyters,  it  is  equally  obvious  that  a 

*  '"Quorum,"  says  Eouvier,  in  his  law  dictionary,  "used  substan- 
tively, signifies  the  number  of  persons  belonging  to  a  legislative 
assembly,  a  corporation,  society  or  other  body,  required  to  transact 
business."  The  word  is  strictly  Latin,  the  genitive  plural  of  a  pro- 
noun, and  came  into  use  as  a  common  noun  in  our  language  from  a 
clause  in  the  second  branch  of  the  Commission  of  the  Peace  accus- 
tomed to  be  issued  by  the  crown  of  England,  in  which  the  powers  of 
justices,  when  assembled  in  sessions,  are  created  and  defined.  The 
clause  in  question  begins,  "We  have  also  assigned  to  you,  and  every 
two  or  more  of  you,  of  whom  (quorum)  any  one  of  you,  the  afore- 
said A,  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  we  will  sliall  be  one."  etc. 


390  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

true  presbytery,  in  extraordinary  circumstances,  may  be 
composed  exclusively  of  ruling  elders.  In  an  unsettled  or 
formative  condition  of  the  church,  presbyter ial  acts  may, 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  be  performed  by  courts  de- 
fective in  one  or  other  of  their  constitutional  elements. 
And  yet  these  acts  need  not  be  despised  as  invalid.  For 
four  years  after  its  formation,  the  first  presbytery  of  the 
Secession  Church  of  Scotland,  the  presbytery  of  Erskine, 
Fisher,  Moncrieff,  and  Wilson,  consisted  only  of  these 
four  ministers.  But,  to  affirm  that  because  a  court  con- 
sisted exclusively  of  ministers,  may,  in  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances, be  acknowledged  a  valid  presbytery,  there- 
fore, in  a  settled  church  state,  such  a  court  is  to  be  treated 
as  legitimate  and  proper,  carries  with  it  no  force  that 
cannot  be  applied  equally  %vell  to  the  case  of  a  body  of 
ruling  elders  without  the  presence  of  a  teaching  elder. 

"The  real  point  in  dispute,  therefore,  is  whether,  in  a 
settled  church  state,  or  under  the  operation  of  our  o^vn 
system,  a  classical  or  synodical  assembly  can  ever  be  legit- 
imately constituted  without  the  presence  of  ruling  elders. 
This  question  may  appear  to  be  very  minute,  but,  as  Dr. 
Breckinridge  observes,  the  ultimate  principle  involved  is 
one  of  the  most  important  and  comprehensive  that  could 
be  submitted  to  the  people  of  God.  It  is  the  question 
whether  the  final  power  and  actual  authority  are  in  the 
hands  of  preachers  as  such,  or  of  the  body  of  the  Chris- 
tian people  to  be  exercised  through  officers  regularly 
elected  by  them.  This  is,  indeed,  a  question  whose  fear- 
ful scope  is  manifest  upon  every  page  of  the  history  of 
Christianity." 

Dr.  Thornwell's  first  argument  against  the  decision  of 
the  Assembly  is  that  "it  contradicts  the  whole  analogy 
of  Presbyterian  polity.  That  polity  constitutes  our 
church  a  commonw^ealth.  But  the  full  force  of  this  state- 
ment is  generally  misapprehended."  Dr.  Thornwell  re- 
fers to  the  noble  panegyric  that  Milton  pronounces  upon 
a  free  commonwealth  as  "the  noblest,  the  manliest,  the 
equalest,  the  justest  government,  the  most  agreeable  to 
all  due  liberty  and  proportionate  equality,"  etc.  But  he 
proceeds  to  pronounce  the  scheme  of  Milton  as  grossly  de- 
fective, in  that  the  highest  council  of  his  republic  was  to 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  391 

be  a  permanent  assembly.  Thornwell  explains  how  that 
great  man  came  to  make  this  blunder,  ''but,  while  Mil- 
ton's mode  of  applying  the  principle  of  representation  is 
to  be  condemned,  he  clearly  perceived  upon  what  its  pe- 
culiar value  depends.  Its  excellence  consists  in  the  prob- 
ability it  furnishes  that  reason  only  shall  sway.  The 
danger  of  democracy  is  from  the  passions  and  the  igno- 
rance of  the  people;  the  danger  of  monarchy  from  the 
caprices,  the  tyranny,  and  the  ambition  of  the  king ;  and 
the  danger  of  an  oligarchy,  from  the  selfishness  incident 
to  privileged  orders.  Reason,  whose  voice  is  the  will  of 
God,  is  much  more  likely  to  prevail  in  a  deliberative  as- 
sembly constituted  of  the  real  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple. It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  end  of  gov- 
ernment is  to  accomplish  the  will  of  the  people.  The 
state  is  a  divine  ordinance,  a  social  institute  founded  on 
the  principle  of  justice.  It  has  great  moral  purposes  to 
subserve.  The  will  of  the  people  should  be  done  only 
when  the  people  will  what  is  right.  The  representative 
principle  is  a  check  upon  their  power,  an  expedient  to  re- 
strain what  would  otherwise  be  an  intolerable  despotism. 
There  is  no  misapprehension  more  dangerous  than  that 
which  confounds  representative  government  with  the 
essential  principle  of  a  pure  democracy.  It  is  not  because 
the  whole  people  cannot  meet,  but  because  they  ought  not 
to  meet,  that  the  representative  council,  in  modern  times, 
is  preferred  to  the  ancient  convocations  in  the  forum  or 
the  market-place.  Power  has  a  natural  tendency  to 
settle  into  despotism;  and  the  legitimate  ends  of  the 
state  may  be  as  completely  defeated  by  the  absolute  power 
of  the  people  as  by  the  absolute  power  of  a  single  ruler. 
Absolute  power  is  tyranny,  whether  in  the  hands  of  large 
masses,  of  privileged  orders,  or  of  single  individuals." 

Dr.  Thornwell  next  points  out  two  conditions  which 
must  belong  to  the  full  and  proper  use  of  the  representa- 
tive system:  the  representative  must  have  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  people's  circumstances  and  wants,  and 
he  must  also  have  a  fixed  purpose  to  aim  at  the  collective 
interests  of  the  whole  body.  To  this  end  the  election  of 
representatives  is  to  be  entrusted  to  small  communities ; 
and  each  representative  is  not  to  be  simply  the  organ  of  a 


392  MY  LIFE  AXl)  TIMES. 

narrow  section,  but  the  representative  of  all  sections  col- 
lectively. There  must  also  be  checks  imposed  on  these 
assemblies  themselves.  Accordingly,  the  freest  modern 
States  have  adopted  the  principle  of  two  chambers,  be- 
longing to  different  classes.  This  is  a  vast  improvement 
upon  the  single  council  of  Milton.  It  is,  perhaps,  as 
great  an  improvement  upon  the  representative  principle 
as  the  representative  principle  itself  was  upon  that  of 
deputies  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Now,  the  description  which 
has  just  been  given  of  a  commonwealth  in  the  state  is  an 
exact  picture,  in  its  essential  features,  of  Presbyterian 
government  in  the  church.  The  very  principles  which 
the  progress  of  modern  society  has  developed,  were  found 
imbedded  in  the  Presbytei'ian  system  ages  before  a  truly 
representative  republic  existed  upon  earth. 

The  first  characteristic  principle  of  our  system  is  the 
government  of  the  church  by  free  representative  assem- 
blies. This  distinguishes  us  from  prelacy  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Independency  on  the  other.  Ours  is  a  govern- 
ment, not  by  presbyters,  but  by  presbyteries ;  and  if  we 
deny  that  such  assemblies  are  essential  to  our  system,  we 
deny,  at  the  same  time,  that  our  system  is  a  common- 
wealth. 

In  the  next  place,  Dr.  Thornwell  proceeds  to  show  how, 
in  the  composition  of  our  assemblies,  the  principle  of  two 
chambers  is  introduced.  This  end  is  accomplished  by  two 
classes  of  representatives.  The  ministers  are  a  check  upon 
the  elders,  and  the  elders  are  a  check  upon  the  ministers. 
Moreover,  our  higher  courts  are  a  check  upon  the  lower. 
A  government,  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  ministers,  is 
fraught  with  danger  to  them  and  to  the  people,  against 
which  all  ecclesiastical  history  is  a  solemn  warning.  Such 
assemblies  might  give  the  church  the  form  of  a  common- 
wealth, but  the  spirit  of  liberty  would  soon  depart.  The 
possession  of  power  would  produce  its  natural  effects,  the 
ministry  would  aspire  to  be  a  privileged  class,  and  the 
people  would  soon  lose  all  the  significance  and  importance 
which  our  system  attaches  to  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  government  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  elders, 
would  lean  too  much  to  popular  will.  Identified  com- 
pletely with  their  own  people,  they  might  be  tempted  to 


THE  COXTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  393 

aim  at  local  and  sectional  advantages,  thus  regarding 
themselves  as  mere  deputies,  instead  of  representatives. 
But,  with  our  double  representation,  clerical  despotism 
and  popular  passion  are  equally  discouraged.  We  can- 
not, therefore,  attach  too  much  importance  to  the  office 
of  ruling  elder  in  its  relation  to  our  church  courts.  Upon 
it  the  security  of  our  liberties  mainly  depends ;  it  is 
the  principal  means,  under  God,  of  making  the  church, 
not  only  a  commonwealth,  but  a  free  commonwealth, 
the  "'noblest,  manliest,  justest,  equalest"  government  on 
earth. 

Then  Dr.  Thornwell  makes  plain  that  the  Presbyte- 
rianism  Avhich  the  Assembly  has  sanctioned,  is  a  maimed 
and  partial  thing — as  different  from  that  of  our  standards 
and  the  standards  of  all  the  Presbyterian  Churches  as  a 
statue  is  different  from  a  man.  The  form  of  a  common- 
wealth may  exist  under  it,  and  will  continue  to  exist  as 
long  as  the  ministers  are  pastors,  but  the  vitality  is  gone, 
the  arteries  of  the  body  become  withered  and  dried  the 
very  moment  ruling  elders,  fresh  from  the  people,  with 
feelings,  habits,  and  interests,  which  identify  them  with 
their  constituents,  are  removed  from  our  courts. 

''This,  then,"  says  Dr.  Thornwell,  ''is  our  first  argu- 
ment. The  resolution  of  the  Assembly  contradicts  the 
whole  analogy  of  our  government ;  it  mars  the  perfection 
of  our  representative  system ;  it  removes  one  of  its  most 
important  securities,  and  leaves  the  church  in  the  hands 
of  rulers  who  are  least  acquainted  with  the  details  of  its 
interests,  and  strongly  tempted  in  the  absence  of  salutary 
checks,  to  pursue  abstractions,  or  to  exalt  themselves  into 
a  privileged  class.  .  .  .  When  we  consider  the  mul- 
titude of  ministers  without  charge,  the  facility  of  in- 
creasing their  number,  and  the  lax  discipline  which 
permits  them  to  exercise  the  full  power  of  scriptural 
bishops,  the  danger  seems  to  us  more  than  imaginary, 
which  threatens  the  balance  of  our  system  when  elders 
are  treated  as  comparatively  unimportant.  ...  To 
dispense  with  elders  in  the  assemblies  of  the  church  is  to 
sever  the  cords  which  bind  the  hearts  of  our  people  to 
their  government,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  converting 
a  free,  vigorous  and  healthful  commonwealth  into  a  sa- 


394  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

cred    aristocracy.     Perpetual   vigilance    is   the   price   of 
liberty." 

There  are  other  arguments,  of  striking  force,  with 
which  Dr.  Thornwell  evinces  how  greatly  the  Assembly 
erred  on  the  quorum  question.  But  it  is  time  to  proceed 
to  his  review  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  second  speech.  This 
concerns  the  right  of  ruling  elders  to  lay  on  hands  in 
the  ordination  of  a  minister,  which  the  Assembly 
of  1843  denied.  The  Assembly  of  1844  reaffirmed 
the  decision  of  its  predecessor,  pronounced  ordina- 
tion to  be  a  ''  rite,"  and  treated  it  simply  as  "  a  de- 
claratory ministerial  act."  The  point  in  dispute,  there- 
fore, involved  the  very  nature  of  ordination.  In  the 
course  of  the  controversy,  two  distinct  issues  had  l^een  pre- 
sented, namely,  whether  ordination  is  an  act  of  the  power 
of  jurisdiction,  and  is  therefore  joint  and  not  several, 
or  whether  it  l)elongs  to  the  power  of  order,  and  therefore 
to  be  performed  only  by  those  who  have  power  to  ordain 
a  minister.  It  was  generally  conceded  that  ordination 
belongs  to  a  court ;  but,  upon  this  supposition  that  it  is 
an  act  of  government,  the  question  was,  whether  there  be 
not  something  so  peculiar  in  it  that  the  only  rulers  who 
are  competent  to  execute  it  are  ministers  themselves. 
Still  it  was  felt  that  there  was  nothing  analogous  in  it  to 
preaching,  nor  to  the  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
nor  to  any  other  function  which  pertained  to  ministers, 
in  their  individual  relations,  as  preachers  of  the  word. 
Then  it  became  a  question  whether,  supposing  it  be- 
longed to  the  court,  still  tlie  administration  of  it  ought 
not  to  be  confined  to  those  members  of  the  court  who  pos- 
sessed the  office  to  which  the  candidate  was  about  to  be  set 
apart.  This,  as  I  interpret  Dr.  Thornwell's  language,  is 
about  the  form  in  which  the  subject  was  first  apprehended 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  1843. 

There  were  two  leading  grounds  on  which  the  doctrine 
of  the  Assend)ly  of  1843  was  defended.  First,  that  ordi- 
nation confers  ministerial  authority,  is  a  sort  of  spiritual 
generation  of  spiritual  teachers,  and,  therefore,  can  be 
bestowed  only  by  those  who  already  possess  it,  upon  the 
obvious  principle  that  a  man  cannot  give  to  others  what  he 
has  not  himself.     Secondly,  that  ordination  pertains  only 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  395 

-to  scriptural  presbyters,  and  that,  as  ruling  elders  are  not 
the  presbyters  of  scripture,  they  have  no  right  to  unite 
with  the  presbytery  in  the  performance  of  a  strictly  pres- 
byterial  act.  This  seems  to  us  to  have  been  the  state  of 
the  controversy  when  the  Assembly  of  1844  met.  That 
Assembly  made  another  issue,  by  denying  that  ordination 
is  an  act  of  government  at  all,  by  pronouncing  it  to  be  a 
rite,  and  by  referring  it  to  the  category  of  order  rather 
than  jurisdiction.  In  every  aspect  of  the  case,  the  char- 
acteristic principles  of  our  system  w^ere  involved.  It  was 
certainly  a  matter  of  some  moment  to  determine  what 
ordination  is.  The  consequence  attached  to  it  by  pre- 
latists  and  papists,  the  bitter  controversies  it  has  occa- 
sioned in  the  church,  and  its  obvious  relations  to  the 
authority  and  duties  of  the  ministry,  required  that  we 
should  at  least  be  settled  in  our  own  views  as  to  what 
constitutes  its  essence.  Our  church  ought  to  have  a  defi- 
nite testimony;  and  yet  their  recent  agitations  had  re- 
vealed the  melancholy  fact  that,  upon  this  whole  subject, 
our  language  to  each  other,  to  other  churches,  and  to  the 
world,  was  as  confused  and  contradictory  as  the  dialects 
of  Babel.  It  was  also  a  matter  of  some  moment  that  the 
office  of  ruling  elder  should  be  clearly  apprehended.  Was 
he  a  mere  deputy  of  the  people,  clothed  w^ith  delegated 
power,  and  only  the  organ  of  the  constituents  who  elect 
him  ?  Or  was  he  an  oliicer,  divinely  appointed,  clothed 
with  jurisdiction  by  the  authority  of  God,  and  elected  by 
the  people  to  discharge  the  duties  which  Christ  had  con- 
nected with  his  office  ?  Was  he,  or  w^as  he  not,  the  presby- 
ter of  the  scriptures  ?  These  surely  were  not  slight  ques- 
tions ;  they  affected  the  very  heart  of  our  system ;  and, 
in  deciding  them,  we  settled  the  distinctive  principles  of 
our  government.  We  are,  therefore,  required  to  say 
whether  we  believe,  with  the  papists,  that  ordination  is  a 
sacrament;  with  the  prelatists,  that  it  belongs  to  the 
power  of  order  ;  with  the  Independents,  that  it  belongs  to 
the  people ;  or  with  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed 
church,  that  it  belongs  to  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  is  an 
act  of  government,  and  must  be  administered  by  the  legit- 
imate courts  of  God's  house.  We  are  required  to  say 
whether  ruling  elders  are  lawful  members  of  ecclesiastical 


396  MY  LIFE  A'SD  TIMES. 

courts,  are  tlie  presbyters  of  scripture,  or  are  mere  iri- 
trnders  into  congregational,  classical,  and  synod ical  as- 
semblies. We  are  required,  in  other  words,  to  say  whether 
we  are  Presbyterians  or  not. 

The  points,  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  discusses  in  the 
speech  before  us,  are,  ''that  the  whole  work  of  the  ordina- 
tion of  ministers  of  the  word  belongs  regularly  and  prop- 
erly to  a  presbytery  composed  of  preaching  and  ruling 
elders ;  and  that  the  presbytery,  which  should  impose 
hands,  is  the  same  as  that  which  performs  all  the  rest  of 
the  work  of  ordination."  His  doctrine,  in  other  words,  is 
that  ordination  is  an  act  of  government,  and  appropriately 
belongs  to  the  rulers  of  God's  house  judicially  convened, 
that  it  is  the  exercise  of  joint,  and  not  of  several  power, 
and  cannot  be  restricted  to  one  class  of  elders  more  than 
to  another.  Every  elder,  who  is  a  member  of  the  court, 
whether  he  be  a  preacher  or  not,  may  participate  in  the 
execution  of  the  act. 

"This  speech,  like  the  former,"  says  Dr.  Thornwell, 
"may  be  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  presents 
what  may  be  called  the  constitutional  argument ;  the 
second  illustrates  the  propriety  and  fitness  of  the  provis- 
ions of  our  standards,  on  which  the  constitutional  argu- 
ment depends  j  and  the  third  is  devoted  to  the  doctrine  of 
other  churches,  in  reference  to  the  point  in  dispute,  as 
this  doctrine  is  gathered  from  the  authorized  symbols  of 
their  faith.  Any  language  which  should  at  all  be  pro])or- 
tioned  to  our  convictions  of  the  ability  with  which  these 
topics  are  discussed,  would,  to  those  who  have  never  in- 
vestigated the  subject,  seem  to  be  extravagant. 

Dr.  Thornwell  continues :  "It  seems  to  us  that  the  op- 
position to  Dr.  Breckinridge's  theory  arises  from  a  two- 
fold error ;  the  first  having  reference  to  the  nature  of 
ordination  itself,  and  the  second  to  the  office  of  the  ruling 
elder.     What,  then,  is  ordination  ? 

"In  the  first  place,  the  very  term  itself  obviously  im- 
plies, what  every  definition,  whether  Protestant  or  Papal, 
Prelatic,  Presbyterian,  or  Congregational,  assumes,  as  a 
conceded  proposition,  that  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  is 
an  ordo.  Ordination  has  evidently  some  relation  to  this 
ordo,  and  our  views  of  this  relation  must  depend  upon 


THE  COXTROVEKSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  397 

our  previous  conceptions  of  the  source  and  nature  of  that, 
whatever  it  is,  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  the  order. 

"According'  to  Kome,  three  sacraments — baptism,  con- 
firmation, and  orders — impress  an  indelible  character  on 
the  soul.  This  character,  whatever  it  is,  which  the  sac- 
rament of  orders  confers,  constitutes  the  difference  be- 
tween the  clergy  and  the  laity.  There  is  a  mark  upon  the 
souls  of  the  one  which  is  not  found  upon  the  souls  of  the 
other.  Orders  communicate  the  power  as  a  personal  and 
substantive  possession,  to  distribute  to  others  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant.  In  correspondence  with  this  view  of 
the  nature  of  the  order,  Rome  teaches  that  ordination  is 
a  sacrament,  and,  as  a  sacrament,  actually  impresses  the 
indelible  character  which  distinguishes  the  priesthood. 
It  is  that  which  makes  a  man  a  priest,  the  only  divine  call- 
ing which  can  justify  a  creature  in  ministering  at  the 
altar.  His  ordination  and  his  commission  from  above 
are  one  and  the  same  thing. 

'^According  to  the  Church  of  England,  Hooker,  author 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  being  our  authority,  'minis- 
terial power,'  which  he  does  not  scruple  to  call  a  mark  or 
a  character,  acknowledged  to  be  indelible,  'is  a  mark  of 
separation,  because  it  severeth  them  that  have  it  from 
other  men,  and  maketh  them  a  special  order,  consecrated 
unto  the  service  of  the  Most  High  in  things  wherewith 
others  may  not  meddle.'  As  in  the  church  of  Rome,  so  in 
this  Protestant  communion,  ordination  is  the  only  valid 
commission  which  a  man  can  legitimately  plead  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinances  of  God.  'Canonical  ordination,' 
says  Hooker,  'in  the  church  of  Christ,  is  that  which  makes 
a  lawful  minister.'  The  very  words  which  the  bishop 
employs  at  ordination  are  conclusive  proof  that  ordina- 
tion is  regarded  as  the  real  communication  of  a  divine 
warrant  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  minister.  It  creates 
a  right  to  the  ordo.  It  impresses  the  character  or  bestows 
the  power  which  is  distinctive  of  the  rank;  so  that  the 
relation  of  ordination  to  the  ordo,  in  the  churches  of 
England  and  Rome,  is  essentially  the  same.  Their 
bishops  undertake,  in  the  name  of  God,  to  call  and  com- 
mission the  ministry  for  its  work. 

''But,  according  to  our  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 


398  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

great  body  of  the  Reformed  clnirclies  of  Europe,  the  right 
to  the  ministerial  office  depends  npon  the  calling  of  God. 
A  divine  vocation,  imparting  a  spiritual  fitness  for  the 
work,  is  the  only  mark  or  character  which  distinguishes 
the  ministry  from  every  other  class  of  men.  Those  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  heavenly  and  powerful  unction, 
by  which  God  qualifies  his  agents  for  the  positions  to 
which  he  has  assigned  them,  are  the  only  badges  of  the 
order  which  the  scriptures  lead  us  to  recognize.  Hence, 
upon  our  principles,  ordination  must  sustain  a  very  dif- 
ferent relation  to  the  ordo  from  that  which  is  ascribed  to 
it  in  the  churches  of  England  and  Rome.  As  with  us,  it 
is  God,  through  the  Spirit,  who  imparts  the  ministerial 
commission,  and  conveys  the  right  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  the  office,  as  God,  and  God  alone,  can  communicate  the 
distinctive  qualities  of  the  ordo^  ordination,  with  us,  can 
only  be  an  acknowledgment  of  the  fact  that  a  man  is  a 
minister  of  God,  and  entitled  to  rule  and  to  teach  in  his 
church.  We  do  not  undertake  to  put  into  the  hands  of 
ministers  their  divine  warrant  for  their  work;  we  only 
receive  and  set  our  seal  to  the  credentials  which  God  has 
given.  Presbyterian  ordination  imparts  nothing,  whether 
character,  power,  grace,  or  privilege.  It  is  neither  a 
charm  nor  a  commission ;  it  is  a  simple  acknowledgment 
of  what  God  has  done.  God  has  appointed  ordination  as 
a  public  recognition,  on  the  part  of  his  cliurch,  of  the 
rights  which  he  has  supernaturally  conferred.  It  is  the 
established  mode  in  Avhich  it  is  made  to  appear  that  he 
has  called  and  anointed  the  subject  of  it  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry. 

"Such  we  apprehend  to  be  the  nature  of  Presbyterian 
ordination ;  and  every  other  hypothesis,  as  it  seems  to  us, 
must  proceed  upon  the  assumption  of  prelatists  and 
papists,  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  man  to  communicate 
the  distinctive  peculiarities  of  the  ministerial  order. 
Every  other  doctrine  must  make  ordination  the  commis- 
sion of  the  ministry.  The  mystical  jargon  about  the 
transmission  of  authority,  the  communication  of  power, 
the  delegation  of  office,  is  essentially  prelatic;  and  we 
can  conceive  of  no  theory  of  ordination  which  renders  it 
incompatible  for  an  elder  to  partake  in  it,  which  does  not 


THE  COXTKOVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  399 

assume  that  its  relation  to  the  ordo  is  that  for  which  pre- 
latists  and  Eomanists  contend. 

"The  other  error  rehites  to  the  nature  of  the  office  of 
the  ruling  elder.  It  is  becoming  common  to  represent  it, 
not  as  the  immediate  appointment  and  institution  of 
Christ,  the  only  King  and  Head  of  the  church,  but  as  the 
creature  of  the  people,  possessed  of  no  other  powers  but 
those  which  thej  have  chosen  to  entrust  to  it.  The  elder 
can  do  nothing  but  what  the  people  themselves  might  do. 
Christ  gave  them  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  and  they 
transfer  it  to  the  elder.  According  to  this  extraordinary 
theory,  the  people,  in  mass,  might  constitute,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  ministry,  the  various  judicial  assemblies 
of  the  church.  This  makes  our  church  government  to  be 
an  odd  mixture  of  an  elective  aristocracy,  the  clergy,  and 
a  pure  democracy,  the  people.  But  this  theory  is  abso- 
lutely false,  unsupported  by  a  single  text  of  scripture  or 
a  single  doctrine  of  our  standards.  It  is  a  new  thing 
under  the  sun,  to  maintain  the  judicial  power  of  the  peo- 
ple. Christ  has  not  committed  the  government  of  the 
church  into  their  hands  directly.  The  language  of  our 
law  is  as  clear  and  explicit  as  language  can  be  made.  'The 
Lord  Jesus,  as  King  and  Head  of  the  church,  hath  therein 
appointed  a  government  in  the  hands  of  church  officers.'' 
Xot  a  word  is  said  about  the  right  of  the  people  to  co- 
operate in  all  acts  of  discipline  and  government.  To  these 
officers,  and  not  directly  to  the  people,  are  committed  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  doctrine  is  largely 
declared  in  various  passages  of  our  standards.  Such  also' 
is  the  doctrine  of  Owen,  which  we  recognize  to  be  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  that  'all  church  power  in 
acta  primo,  or  fundamentally,  is  in  the  church  itself;  in 
actii  secundo,  or  its  exercise,  in  them  that  are  especially 
called  thereunto.'  'He  hath  instituted,'  says  this  great 
man,  'and  appointed  the  offices  themselves,  and  made  a 
grant  of  them  unto  the  church  for  its  edification,  as  also 
he  hath  determined  and  limited  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  officers.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  any,  or  of  all  the 
churches  in  the  world,  to  appoint  any  office,  or  officer,  in 
the  church  that  Christ  hath  not  appointed.'  In  the  com- 
munication of  church  power  in  office  unto  any  person 


400  :\rY  life  axd  times. 

calkMJ  thereimto,  the  work  and  duty  of  the  church  consist, 
formally,  in  acts  of  obedience  unto  the  commands  of 
Christ.  Hence  it  doth  not  give  unto  such  officers  a  power 
or  authority  that  was  formally  and  actually  in  the  body 
of  the  community,  by  virtue  of  any  grant  or  law  of  Christ, 
so  as  that  they  should  receive  and  act  the  power  of  the 
church  by  virtue  of  a  delegation  from  them ;  but  only 
they  design,  choose,  set  apart,  the  individual  persons,  who 
thereon  are  entrusted  with  office  power  by  Christ  hims(df, 
according  as  was  before  declared. 

''This  error,  that  the  people,  and  not  Christ,  are  the 
direct  and  immediate  source  of  all  the  power  and  author- 
ity committed  to  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  has  arisen  from 
a  total  misapprehension  of  the  title  with  which  they  dis- 
tinguish him,  the  representative  of  the  people.  A  repre- 
sentative and  a  delegate  are  essentially  distinct ;  they 
differ,  not  merely,  as  Lord  Brougham  *  seems  to  suppose, 
in  the  extent  of  the  subjects  on  which  they  are  authorized 
to  act,  but  in  the  relation  which  they  bear  to  those  who 
elect  them.  The  officers  are  radically  and  essentially  dis- 
tinct. A  deputy  is  simply  the  locum  tenens  of  his  prin- 
cipal, the  creature  of  instructions,  which  he  cannot  con- 
sistently transcend^ — a  substitute,  and  nothing  more.  A 
representative,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  confidential  agent, 
pursuing  the  dictates  of  his  own  understanding,  and 
bound  to  act  in  conformity  with  his  own  private  convic- 
tions of  right.  A  deputy  is  an  organ  through  whom  the 
will  of  his  constituents  is  declared ;  a  representative  de- 
liberates and  acts  for  his  constituents,  and  upon  his  own 
personal  responsibility  must  endeavor  to  promote  the  true 
interests  of  the  people,  whatever  may  be  their  temporary 
whims  or  caprices.  Burke  was  a  noble  representative, 
hut  not  a  deputy,  when  he  declared  to  the  electors  of  Bris- 
tol, 'I  did  not  obey  your  instructions ;  no !  I  conformed 
to  the  instructions  of  truth  and  nature  and  maintained 
your  interest,  against  your  opinions,  with  a  constancy  that 
became  me ;'  and  Chatham  understood  the  true  nature  of 
his  office,  though  he  mav  have  erred  on  a  point  of  eti- 
quette, when  he  declined  presenting  a  petition  from  his 
constituents  of  Bath. 

*  Political  Philosophy.  Vol.  III.,  Clia]).  vi.,  p.  31. 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  401 

"Representative  government  is  a  different  kind  of  gov- 
ernment from  a  pure  democracy.  It  is  essentially  a  limi- 
tation upon  the  people ;  they  choose  representatives,  be- 
cause it  is  not  safe  that  they  themselves  should  discharge 
the  functions  of  legislators  or  rulers.  In  human  govern- 
ments, the  power  of  representatives  may,  for  the  most 
part,  be  ultimately  traced  to  the  people,  as  this  whole  sys- 
tem of  polity  is  generally,  though  not  always,  the  off- 
spring of  popular  will.  In  establishing  this  species  of 
government,  the  people  create  the  office  of  representative, 
define  its  powers,  specify  its  duties,  and  settle  its  rights. 
They  form  a  constitution,  the  very  object  of  which  is  to 
prevent  the  accumulation  of  too  much  power  in  their  own 
hands,  to  restrain  the  supremacy  of  their  o^vn  will,  and  to 
check  the  tendencies  of  absolute  authority  to  abuse  and 
tyranny.  This  constitution,  once  fixed,  is  the  immediate 
source  of  all  power  to  all  the  representatives  chosen  under 
it ;  to  it,  and  to  it  alone,  must  they  appeal  for  a  knowledge 
of  their  rights,  privileges  and  duties.  It,  and  not  the  will 
of  tliose  who  elect  them,  becomes  their  law.  Their  rela- 
tions to  the  constitution,  which  equally  binds  them  and 
their  constituents,  render  it  absurd  that  they  should  be 
treated  as  mere  organs,  machines,  or  automatons,  through 
which  others  act.  It  deserves,  further,  to  be  remarked 
that,  in  all  organized  states,  in  which  the  representative 
principle  is  a  part  of  the  constitution,  the  representatives 
possess  powers  and  discharge  functions  to  which  their 
constituents,  as  a  mass,  can  lay  no  claim,  putting  it,  in 
this  way,  beyond  all  doubt  that  a  representative  and 
deputy  are  fundamentally  distinct. 

"In  the  church,  the  representative  government  is  not, 
as  in  the  state,  even  ultimately  the  creature  of  the  people ; 
it  is  the  direct  appointment  of  Christ,  and  the  powers 
and  duties  of  ecclesiastical  representatives  are  prescribed 
and  defined  in  the  word  of  God,  the  real  constitution  of 
the  church.  They  are  represented  as  rulers,  and  not  as 
tools ;  they  are  to  study  and  administer  the  laws  of  the 
Saviour,  and  not  bend  to  the  caprices  of  the  people ;  and 
they  are  to  listen  to  no  authoritative  instructions  but 
those  which  have  proceeded  from  the  throne  of  God. 
Ohrist  never  gave  to  the  people,  as  a  mass,  any  right  to 


402  MY  LIFE  A^D  TIMES. 

exercise  jurisdiction,  or  to  administer  discipline.  Thej 
cannot  appear  in  session  or  presbytery.  It  is  not  only  in- 
convenient that  they  should  be  there  in  their  collective  ca- 
pacity, but  they  have  no  right  to  be  there.  The  privilege 
of  their  attentling  as  members,  as  component  elements  of 
the  court,  would  be  destructive  of  all  the  ends  which  rep- 
resentation is  designed  to  secure ;  it  would  subvert  the 
whole  system  of  government.  The  business  of  the  people 
is  to  elect  the  men  who  give  sufficient  evidence  that  they 
are  fitted  by  the  Spirit  to  fill  the  offices  which  Christ  has 
appointed.  'This  is  the  power  and  right  given  unto  the 
church,  essentially  considered  with  respect  unto  their 
officers,  namely,  to  design,  call,  choose,  and  set  apart  the 
persons  by  the  ways  of  Christ's  appointment  unto  those 
offices  whereimto  by  his  laws  he  hath  annexed  church 
power  and  authority.'  These  men  represent  the  people, 
because  they  are  the  choice  of  the  people.  The  term  rep- 
resentative, therefore,  is  equivalent  to  chosen  ruler ;  it 
designates  the  manner  in  which  the  office  is  acquired,  and 
not  the  source  of  its  powers.  When  elders,  consequently, 
are  styled  in  our  standards  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple, it  is  a  total  misapprehension  to  suppose  that  the 
meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed  is  that  they  are  the- 
deputies  or  delegates  of  the  people,  occupying  a  position 
and  exercising  powers  which  the  people  themselves  might 
occupy  and  exercise.  The  title  imports  nothing  more  than 
that  they  are  the  persons  whom  the  people  have  selected, 
as  dul_^6  qualified  and  called  of  God,  to  perform  the  func- 
tions which  Christ  has  enjoined  upon  the  rulers  of  his 
house.  The  people,  as  such,  possess  not  a  single  element 
of  the  potestas  jurisdictlonis  which  pertains  to  the  elders 
and  the  courts  of  the  church." 

Dr.  Thornwell  now  proceeds  to  say  that  from  the  fore- 
going ex])lanation  of  the  term  representative  it  is  per- 
fectly obvious  that  pastors,  by  which  word  he  means  min- 
isters, are  as  truly  representatives  of  tlie  people  as  are 
ruling  elders.  The  reason  why  the  title  representatives^ 
is  not  given  to  them,  as  well  as  to  tlie  ruling  elders,  is 
that  they  have  other  duties  unconnected  with  the  govern- 
ment of  the  cliurch,  so  that  this  title  cannot  be  a  complete 
description  of  their  office,  as  it  is  of  the  elder's  office.    Be- 


THE  CONTKOVEESIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  403 

tliis  as  it  may,  the  scriptures  and  our  standards  expressly 
teach  that  the  ruling  elder  is  strictly  and  properly  a  pres- 
byter, and,  therefore,  entitled  to  j)iii"ticipate  in  all  acts  in 
which  any  presbyter,  as  such,  can  bear  a  part. 

But  elaborate  efforts  have  been  made  to  prove  that  the 
elder  is  not  properly  a  presbyter,  this  term  being  re- 
stricted to  preachers,  to  preachers  as  such,  and  to  preach- 
ers exclusively.  Dr.  Thornwell  well  says  that  the  mani- 
fest effect  of  this  theory  is  to  invalidate  the  arguments  for 
the  divine  appointment  of  the  office  drawn  from  the  nat- 
ural meaning  of  the  title,  the  acknowledged  constitution 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  the  plurality  of  elders  con- 
fessedly ordained  in  the  apostolic  churches.  "When  these 
points  are  abandoned,"  says  Dr.  Thornwell,  "we  know  of 
nothino'  stronger  or  clearer  that  shall  be  left  from  which  a 
scriptural  warrant  for  our  system  can  be  deduced.  To  us 
they  seem  to  have  been  consistent,  who,  when  they  had 
proved  that  the  ruling  elder  was  not  a  presbyter,  M^ere 
prepared  to  abolish  the  office  as  a  human  contrivance,  and 
an  unnecessary  appendage  to  the  church."  His  reference 
here  is  to  a  somewhat  celebrated  article  published,  in  Dr. 
Hodge's  Princeton  Review,  shortly  previous  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  at  Rochester,  in  1860,  which  article  was 
expressly  abjured  in  that  Assembly  by  Dr.  McGill,  and 
the  responsibility  for  which  Dr.  Hodge  himself  after- 
wards made  very  significant  and  very  earnest  efforts  to 
escape. 

Dr.  Thornwell  concludes  his  review  of  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's sermon  by  showing  that  it  is  at  once  the  doctrine 
of  our  standards  and  the  word  of  God,  that  presbyter,  as 
a  title  of  office,  means  a  ruler,  and  nothing  more  than  a 
ruler.  He  enters  into  a  very  thorough  examination  of  the 
question,  ou  what  ground  is  the  minister  of  the  word 
styled  a  presbyter  ?  That  this  word,  presbyter,  is  not 
synonymous  with  preacher,  he  demonstrates  at  length,  in 
the  use  of  both  learning  and  logic.  I  cannot  copy  his 
demonstration,  nor  am  I  able  to  condense  it,  but  I  com- 
mend it  to  the  scholarly  inquirer's  careful  attention. 

In  this  attempt  to  write  a  history  of  the  controversy 
about  elders  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  before  it  Avas 
necessarily  divided  by  the  war  of  1861-1865,   I  have 


404  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

chosen  to  regard  Dr.  Hodge  as  the  leader  and  representa- 
tive of  one  side  of  that  controversy.  Drs.  Breckinridge 
and  Thornwell  were  leaders  on  the  other  side.  As  Dr. 
diaries  Hodge  was,  perhaps,  the  greatest,  so  also  he  was 
the  latest  advocate  of  the  theory  which  denies  that  ruling 
elders  are  true  and  proper  presbyters.  This  Presbyterian 
controversy  ended  in  the  Northern  church,  so  far  as  I 
know,  with  the  Assembly  at  Rochester,  in  1860.  For  in 
what  then  became  the  Southern  church,  ''kno^^^l  officially 
as  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,"  very 
little,  if  any,  general  controversy  about  the  elder  ever 
prevailed. 

Evidently  dissatisfied  with  the  exhibition  he  had  made 
as  a  Presbyterian  in  the  memorable  debate  on  the  l)i)ard 
question,  in  which  he  had  led  one  side,  Dr.  Hodge  subse- 
quently read  to  the  Assembly  at  Rochester  a  carefully 
prepared  statement  of  his  Presbyterianism,  as  I  have 
stated  in  the  preceding  pages.  I  here  insert  from  that 
statement  two  paragraphs,  seven  and  eight,  which  give  his 
views  of  the  elder  question.  They  will  set  before  the 
reader  very  comprehensively  the  ideas  that  prevailed 
amongst  the  party  which  he  led.  Here  is  paragraph  num- 
ber seven : 

"7.  That,  as  there  is  no  class  of  officers  above  the  pres- 
byters, no  gifts  higher  than  those  which  constitute  a  min- 
ister of  the  word,  presbyters  are  the  highest  permanent 
officers  of  the  church,  and  stand  all  on  the  same  level ;  all 
have  the  same  office  and  the  same  prerogatives.  This  is 
the  parity  of  the  clergy.  There  are  no  apostles,  no 
prophets,  and,  of  course,  no  prelates." 

This  paragraph  is  levelled  against  the  claims  of  Epis- 
copal prelates.  In  other  words,  it  states  the  doctrine  of 
the  parity  of  all  ministers  of  the  word,  whom  it  calls  the 
"clergy" — a  word  no  Presbyterian  ought  ever  to  apply  in 
this  way.  Speaking  of  these  ministers  of  the  word,  and 
of  them  alone,  ])r.  Hodge  says,  "Presbyters  are  the  high- 
est permanent  officers  of  the  church,  and  stand  all  on  the 
same  level ;  all  have  the  same  office  and  the  same  pre- 
rogatives." Here  he  sets  himself  and  his  party  against 
Paul,  in  1  Timothy  v.  17,  where  the  apostle  divides  pres- 
byters into  two  classes,  one  of  which  only  "rule  well." 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  405 

But  the  other,  and  the  higher,  class  labor  also  in  the  word 
and  doctrine. 

Here  is  paragraph  nnmber  eight : 

*'8.  That  the  right  of  the  people  to  take  part  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  is  exercised  through  their  repre- 
sentatives, the  ruling  elders.  Here  is  the  principle  of 
representation,  and  here  is  the  foundation  of  the  peculiar 
character  of  our  church  courts.  They  are  composed  of 
two  elements — a  lay  and  clerical — ministers  and  elders. 
This  representation  of  the  people  is,  first,  in  the  session, 
then  in  the  presbytery,  then  in  the  synod,  and  then  in  the 
General  Assembly.  In  all,  the  elders  have  the  same  right 
with  the  ministers  to  participate  in  the  exercise  of  all  the 
powers  of  the  church — executive,  legislative,  and  judicial. 
They  are  in  our  courts,  not  by  courtesy,  not  by  human 
ordinance,  but  of  divine  right." 

Thus,  in  paragraph  number  eight.  Dr.  Hodge  asserts 
the  right  of  the  people  to  take  part  in  the  government  of 
the  church,  through  their  representatives,  the  ruling 
elders.  So  then  ''the  clergy"  are  not  representatives  of 
the  people,  and  the  government  of  the  church,  it  follows, 
is  not  all  of  it  in  the  hands  of  the  people  through  their 
representatives,  but  only  a  part  of  that  government.  In 
whose  hands  is  the  other  part  lodged  ?  Manifestly  in  the 
hands  of  "the  clergy."  Therefore,  I  denounced  the  use 
of  that  name  as  unpresbyterian  and  unprotestant.  That 
name  originated  in  the  Romish  idea  that  the  Lord's  "lot," 
that  is,  the  Lord's  cleros,  or  portion,  was  the  priesthood. 
The}^  are  the  clergy,  while  the  people  are  no  part  of  the 
Lord's  lot,  but  only  sheep  for  the  clergy  to  shear.  These 
"clerg^'Tnen,"  if  Dr.  Hodge  will  give  that  name  to  min- 
isters of  the  word,  are  lords  of  the  church,  but  they  allow 
the  people  a  part  in  this  government,  through  their  repre- 
sentatives, the  ruling  elders  !  The  ministers,  it  will  be  ob- 
served, are  not  representatives  of  the  people,  but  the 
people's  lords  and  masters!  Here  is  Dr.  Hodge's  "prin- 
ciple of  representation."  Here  is  the  "foundation  of  the 
peculiar  character  of  our  church  courts !"  There  are  two 
elements  in  these  courts — one  a  lay  element,  the  other  a 
clerical.  This  certainly  Avould  make  our  church  courts 
to  be  of  a  very  peculiar  character,  but  as  certainly  not 


406  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

a  scriptural  character.  The  officers  whom  Christ  gives  to 
be  riders  in  the  church,  the  ehkn-s,  presbyters,  or  bishops, 
are  not  a  "lay  element,"  neither  are  they  a  "clerical  ele- 
ment." Both  classes  of  the  office  of  elder  (otherwise 
called  presbyter  or  bishop)  are  rulers,  and  they  are  equal 
as  rulers.  But  one  of  these  classes  has  the  superadded 
office  of  teaching,  and,  as  to  this  office,  the  two  classes  are 
not  equal,  and  are  not  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  honor, 
according  to  apostolic  statement. 

Dr.  Ilodge  starts  out,  in  paragraph  number  seven,  with 
such  a  use  of  the  w^ord  presbyter  as  confines  it  to  his 
"clergy."  But  he  closes  up  paragraph  number  eight  with 
a  full  and  complete  acknowledgment  that  elders  have  the 
same  right  with  ministers  in  all  the  courts,  and  that  his 
laymen  are  equally  of  divine  right  with  his  "clergymen." 

To  what  straits  is  the  author  of  this  statement  reduced 
upon  his  plan  of  setting  forth  that  great  foundation  prin- 
ciple of  our  Presbyterian  system — the  principle  of  repre- 
sentation !  He  perceived  that  he  must  not  deny  that  the 
true  and  real  church  of  God  consists  of  free  men,  made 
free  by  the  Son.  As  such,  it  must  be  a  free  Christian 
commonwealth,  governed,  under  its  divine  Head,  by  his 
people,  but  not  directly.  The  people  are  to  rule  through 
their  own  chosen  representatives.  Accordingly,  Congre- 
gationalism, Avhicli  is  the  direct  government  of  the  people, 
is  to  be  rejected.  On  the  other  hand,  neither  prelates  or 
popes  are  ever  chosen  by  the  people.  What  now  remains  ? 
Only  the  middle  ground,  set  forth  in  scripture:  the 
church  is  to  be  governed,  now  as  from  the  beginning,  by 
ruling  elders,  every  one  of  whom  is  elected  as  their  rep- 
resentative by  the  people. 

But  the  author  of  this  statement  is  not  willing  to  ac- 
knowledge ruling  elders  as  true  and  proper  presbyters. 
He  wants  to  make  "presbyter"  mean  "preacher."  And 
so  he  insists  that  the  elder,  though  chosen  by  God's  people 
to  be  their  ruler,  is  only  a  layman  and  must  not  be  called 
a  presbyter.  He  wants  to  make  out  of  his  presbyter  what 
he  calls  a  "clergyman."  He  wants  what  he  calls  his  clergy 
to  rule  the  church.  So  there  is  left  to  Christ's  free  people 
only  a  part  in  the  representative  government,  and  those 
who  exercise  this  part  of  the  representative  government 


THE  CONTROVEKSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  407 

must  still  continue  to  be  only  laymen.  Thus  our  church 
must  have  a  mixed  representation — one  half  lajanen,  the 
other  half  clergymen — but  no  ruling  elders  and  no  min- 
isters of  the  word.  And,  as  paragraph  eight  says,  that 
the  people's  part  in  the  government  of  the  church  "is  ex- 
ercised through  their  representatives,  the  ruling  elders," 
it  follows  that  only  the  lay  element  represents  the  people, 
so  that  the  clerical  element  must  have  the  higher  duty  of 
representing  the  clergy. 

xVnd  yet,  after  all  these  incongruous  things  have  been 
said.  Dr.  Hodge's  statement  about  the  ruling  elder  con- 
cludes with  the  remarkable  acknowledgment  that  "^'the 
elders  have  the  same  right  with  the  ministers  to  partici- 
pate in  the  exercise  of  all  the  powers  of  the  church — ex- 
ecutive, legislative,  and  judicial.  They  are  in  our  courts, 
not  by  courtesy,  not  bv  human  ordinance,  but  of  divine 
right."" 

The  reader  will  acknowledge  that  these  final  expres- 
sions of  Dr.  Hodge  are  very  strong,  although  he  makes 
the  ruling  elder  only  a  layman.  He  will  not  let  him  be  a 
true  and  proper  presbyter,  yet,  by  divine  authority,  he  is 
entitled,  as  much  as  any  minister,  to  participate  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  all  church  power — executive,  legislative,  and 
judicial !  Thus,  as  the  result  of  the  debate  with  his  great 
antagonist,  he  is  led  to  yield  to  the  ruling  elder  all  that 
has  been  claimed  by  the  party  he  opposes.  Had  Dr. 
Hodge  forgotten  that,  with  all  this  church  power  in  the 
ruling  elder's  hand,  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive, 
he  has  made  him  a  necessary  member  of  the  presbytery's 
quorum,  and  given  him  the  right  to  lay  on  hands  in  a 
minister's  ordination  ? 

It  has  been  made  very  evident,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that 
the  party  represented  by  Dr.  Hodge  did  not  teach  the  old 
doctrine  of  genuine  Presbyterianism.  That  doctrine,  in 
its  fullness,  is  as  old  as  the  'New  Testament  epistles,  while 
some  of  its  parts  can  be  traced  backwards  to  the  time  of 
Moses,  and  even  to  the  very  beginning,  for  the  church  of 
God  began  to  be  at  the  very  fall  of  Adam,  while  the  ante- 
diluvian patriarchs  may  very  justly  be  claimed  to  be 
elders  that  ruled.  Next  to  the  jSTew  Testament  epistles, 
we  meet  ruling  elders,  otherwise  called  presbyters  and 


408  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

bishops,  in  the  epistles  of  the  three  apostolic  fathers, 
Clement,  Polycarp,  and  Ignatius.  Their  history  runs 
down  through  all  the  ages,  as  it  is  traced  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, in  his  second  great  Baltimore  speech,  and  by  Dr. 
Thornwell,  in  his  article  entitled  ''The  Ruling  Elder  a 
Presbyter,"  to  which  the  reader  will  find  appended  notes 
on  this  subject  of  special  learning  and  value.  (See  Col- 
lected Writings,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  115-131.)  It  is  the  doc- 
trine of  Calvin,  and  all  the  Reformed  churches ;  of  the 
Scotch  church,  as  organized  by  Knox ;  of  the  four  great 
Scotch  Presbyterian  divines,  who  led  the  Westminster 
Assembly  through  its  great  work;  of  the  Scotch  and 
Scotch-Irish  emigrants  to  this  country,  whom  the  Plan  of 
Union  vainly  attempted  to  hybridize ;  of  old  Dr.  Samuel 
Miller,  in  his  work  on  the  ruling  eldership. 

The  new  doctrine  came  into  our  church  from  the  Con- 
gregationalists,  who  have  given  us  many  of  their  best  men, 
and  they  naturally  brought  their  own  ideas  of  church  gov- 
ernment with  them,  and  engrafted  them  upon  the 
churches  of  the  North  and  Northwest.  As  for  the  emi- 
nent Dr.  Hodge,  he  became  especially  a  student  of  dog- 
matic theology,  and  made  it  very  evident  at  Rochester 
that  he  had  not  studied  church  government.  In  fact,  he 
seems  to  have  held  the  doctrine  of  church  government  a 
matter  of  minor  consideration — perhaps,  naturally  for 
one  who  devoted  all  his  life  to  systematic  theology.  He 
manifested  great  surprise  that  Dr.  Thornwell  should  have 
represented  church  order  as  much  a  matter  of  divine  right 
as  any  other  part  of  revelation.  But,  do  we  not  know  that 
order  is,  and  from  the  very  first  has  been,  the  guardian 
and  protector  of  truth  ?  The  very  first  revelations  God 
made  known  to  fallen  man  required  to  be  thus  protected, 
and  Avere  thus  protected  down  till  the  time  of  Abraham. 
Accordingly,  there  was  set  apart  one  day  in  seven  to  be 
devoted  to  God's  worship,  and  continually  bloody  sacri- 
fices were  to  be  offered,  and  there  were  patriarchs  to  teach 
and  maintain  the  truth.  But  there  was  no  formally  or- 
ganized church,  separating  the  sons  of  God  from  the  men 
of  the  world,  and  so  revealed  truth  perished  in  all  the 
earth.  Abraham  is  then  called,  and  the  church  formally 
set  up  in  his  solitary  family.     To  its  faithful  care  the 


THE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  409 

revealed  oracles  were  committed  until  the  Messiah  should 
appear.  In  this  Abrahamic  church,  patriarchs  continued 
to  rule,  and  there  were  ruling  elders,  even  wdien  that 
church  was  in  Egyptian  bondage.  To  Abraham  was  also 
given  circmncision,  an  external  sign  and  seal  for  assur- 
ance to  him  of  righteousness.  Israel  had  also  synagogues, 
precursors  of  our  Christian  congregations,  constituting 
social  worship  all  over  the  land  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath. 
"Moses  of  old  time  had  in  every  city  them  that  preach 
him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath  day" 
(Acts  XV.  21).  They  had  "teaching  priests,"  and  "Levites 
to  give  the  sense"  of  what  was  read.  They  had  psalms 
for  the  singing  of  God's  praises.  The  synagogue  had  its 
rulers  from  the  beginning.  It  w^as  they  who  called  on 
Paul  and  Barnabas  for  the  word  of  exhortation.  By  the 
help  of  such  ordinances,  the  Abrahamic  church,  passing 
through  the  Mosaic  economy,  faithfully  conserved  reve- 
lation down  to  Christ.  It  was  these  by  which  the  Lord 
fenced  round  his  truth.  This  wall  prevented  the  doctrine 
from  being  trampled  down  (Isaiah  v.  2,  5).  Christ 
comes  to  give  his  church  its  new  and  Christian  form  and 
name,  and  to  entrust  it  with  the  care  and  promulgation 
of  brighter,  grander,  and  more  important  revelations  of 
his  truth.  Did  he  furnish  that  church  with  no  ordinances 
of  divine  right  which  were  to  be  the  bulwark  and  barrier 
of  these  truths  ?  The  inspired  apostles  Christianized  the 
synagogue,  but  added  still  higher  and  stronger  defences 
of  the  truth  than  had  been  committed  to  it,  Israel  was 
under  the  bondage  of  rites  and  ceremonies.  We  have  been 
set  free  by  the  Son,  and  we  are  free  indeed.  Office- 
bearers of  a  higher  character  are  given  to  the  Christian 
church.  The  services  and  worship  of  Israel  were  spirit- 
ual. Ours  are  intended  and  expected  to  be  more  spiritual. 
They  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  We  enjoy  the  far  more 
holy  and  blessed  privilege  of  sanctifying  the  Lord's  day, 
and  of  celebrating  his  resurrection,  which  is  the  pledge 
of  ours.  The  Jews  had  the  bloody  sacrament  of  circum- 
cision. The  Christian  church  has  the  baptism  of  water 
and  the  Spirit.  They  had  the  Passover,  with  its  associa- 
tions of  deliverance  from  the  angel  of  death,  as  well  as 
the  power  of  Egypt.     But  we  enjoy  the  Lord's  supper, 


410  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

with  its  far  more  endearing  remembrances,  and  its  far 
more  spiritual  and  heavenly  hopes.  Above  all,  they  had 
set  before  them  the  straitening  and  compressing  idea  of 
their  being  God's  peculiar  people,  closely  shut  in  from 
intermarriage  and  all  other  kinds  of  intercommunion 
with  the  outside  world.  Indeed,  they  were  required  to 
kill  off  all  the  inhabitants  that  had  preceded  them  in 
Canaan,  lest  they  themselves  should  be  corrupted,  and 
also  corrupt  the  truths  committed  to  them.  We  are  to 
have  our  hearts'  deepest  and  tenderest  s^mipathies  aroused 
within  us,  and  enthused  by  the  most  unselfish,  heroic,  and 
holiest  aspirations  through  that  last  word  of  our  Lord, 
"Go,  make  all  men  your  brothers  and  my  servants." 

Now,  looking  at  all  these  Christian  ordinances,  and 
other  effectual  external  influences,  provided  by  the  Lord 
to  enable  his  church  for  her  constant  and  watchful  guar- 
dianship and  dissemination  of  the  glorious  gospel  com- 
mitted to  her,  is  it  not  preposterous  for  any  man  to  deny 
that  order  was  revealed  just  as  much  as  doctrine  ?  Do  we 
not  clearly  perceive  that  our  Saviour  has  taken  particular 
care  about  the  kinds  of  officers  or  agents  he  ordained  for 
the  adequate  and  exact  transmission  to  succeeding  gener- 
ations of  the  doctrines  revealed  by  him  to  his  church? 
This  was  a  point  to  be  specially  guarded,  and  specially 
did  our  Lord  guard  it.  We  were  not  left,  it  is  said,  like 
children  to  be  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine. 
The  truths  revealed  to  us  were  fenced  against  being  over- 
run and  trampled  down  by  the  sleight  of  men  and  cunning 
craftiness,  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.  Xo,  we 
have  pastors  and  teachers  provided,  through  whose  double 
ministration  we  and  our  doctrine  should  be  protected,  so 
that  we  should  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things,  who  is  the 
Head,  even  Christ. 

But  Dr.  Ilodge  maintained  that  order  cannot  be  of 
divine  right,  like  doctrine;  such  matters  are  left  to  our 
discretion,  because  we  live  in  the  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit.  But,  if  in  this  dispensation  of  ours  we  enjoy, 
more  than  in  the  former,  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  does 
it  not  seem  that  less  must  be  left  to  our  discretion,  rather 
than  more?  Does  not  the  canon  of  revealed  scripture 
close  with  a  most  solemn  warning  to  anv  man  who  shall 


THE  CO^^TKOVEK.SIES  OF  MY  TIMES.  411 

add  to  or  take  away  from  the  things  written  %  Perhaps 
the  Christian  church  has  never  suffered  as  much  from  any 
other  one  thing  as  from  the  religious  inventions  of  human 
wisdom,  and  the  profane  interferences  of  human  discre- 
tion with  the  arrana^ements  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XII.— Part  2. 

CONTEOVERSIES    OF    SciEJfCE    WITH    THE    WoRD    OF    GOD. 

1884-1891. 

SCIENCE  is  knowledge ;  our  English  word  answers  to 
the  old  Greek  word  gnosis.  The  gnostics  were  the 
scientists  of  old,  that  is,  the  Txtiowing  ones.  The  philos- 
ophers followed  after  the  gnostics,  but  they  chose  a  more 
modest  title,  for  their  name  signifies  only  lovers  of 
wisdom. 

It  would  seem  that  the  controversy  of  science  with  the 
Bible  dates  many  centuries  back.  Scripture  teachings 
were  opposed  nineteen  hundred  years  ago  by  the  Saddu- 
cees,  disciples  of  the  learned  Sadoc.  We  all  remember  the 
elaborate  argument  they  brought  against  our  Saviour's 
doctrine'  of  the  Innnan  spirit  and  the  resurrection  of 
man's  body,  and  how  that  argument  became  thin  air  as 
soon  as  touched  by  him.  So  also  the  same  opposition  of 
science  to  the  Bible  arose  in  Athens  when  certain  philos- 
ophers of  the  Epicureans  and  the  Stoics  encountered 
Paul,  reckoning  him  a  babbler  because  he  preached  Jesus 
and  the  resurrection.  But  in  point  of  fact,  did  not  the 
opposition  of  science,  falsely  so  called,  really  begin  very 
much  further  back  ?  Did  not  our  first  mother  derive  from 
a  very  bad  quarter  a  doctrine  she  believed  to  be  true 
knowledge,  so  that  though  God  had  said,  "You  shall  surely 
die,"  she  was  led  to  believe  and  profess  "we  shall  not 
surely  die  ?" 

The  Rev.  William  Ellison  Boggs,  D.  D., 

Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Georgia,  in  an  unpub- 
lished essay  I  am  allowed  to  use  freely,  raises  the  ques- 
tion, how  far  the  Presbyterian  creed  in  the  Westminster 
standards  or  the  Bible  itself  have  been  modified  by  the 
discoveries  of  modern  physical  science.  He  answers :  Not 
at  all.     Certain  popular  opinions  closely  connected  with 


CONTROVEESIES    OF   SCIENCE.  413 

the  scriptures  have  been  greatly  modified,  but  these 
opinions  are  mere  human  theories  not  affecting  the  sub- 
stance of  our  divine  religious  belief.  These  popular  no- 
tions relate  to  material  things — the  earth,  sun,  moon  and 
stars,  animals  and  plants — and  the  Bible  is  in  nowise 
responsible  for  these  theories.  It  teaches  nothing  at  all 
in  regard  to  them.  Men  gather  these  notions  elsewhere 
and  unconsciously  read  them  into  the  Bible.  Science, 
in  sweeping  away  these  figments  leaves  the  word  of  God 
untouched  and  better  comprehended,  and  the  Chancellor 
insists  that  we  therefore  keep  steadily  in  view  the  differ- 
ence between  the  word  of  God  in  the  Bible,  and  its  inter- 
pretations by  uninspired  men.  All  their  opinions  are 
liable  to  more  or  less  of  error  ;  but  the  sacred  text  itself  as 
God  gave  it  to  men  we  hold  to  be  infallibly  true  in  every 
line  and  word.  It  may  be  added  that  all  translations  are 
of  the  nature  of  human  interpretations,  and  when  science 
in  any  of  its  branches  can  shed  new  light  upon  the  true 
meaning  of  the  sacred  text,  it  deserves  the  thanks  and  not 
the  reprobation  of  Christian  readers. 

The  Science  of  Zoology. 

Chancellor  Boggs  derives  his  first  illustration  from  this 
science.  The  Hebrew  term  reem  is  translated  unicorn 
in  the  English  Bible,  meaning  a  one-horned  horse,  an 
imaginary  animal  that  never  existed.  It  was  long  be- 
lieved to  exist  somewhere  in  the  unexplored  wilds  of 
Asia.  Probably,  when  the  Septuagint  translation  was 
made,  some  two  centuries  before  Christ,  such  an  animal 
was  believed  in,  and  the  Greek  translators  may  have  used 
the  word  "unicorn"  to  designate  that  belief.  However,  the 
science  of  zoology  has  since  satisfied  all  intelligent  men 
that  no  such  horse-like  animal  could  ever  have  existed. 
But  there  is  one  species  of  the  rhinoceros  which  has  one 
horn.  But  science  has  proved  that  the  evidence  at  hand 
discourages  the  belief  of  the  one-horned  rhinoceros  having 
been  in  Palestine  within  the  human  period.  The  descrip- 
tions of  the  unicorn  in  the  Bible  do  not  agree  with  the 
characteristics  of  the  rhinoceros,  but  do  exactly  suit  the 
•buffalo,  which  is  plentiful  even  yet  in  Syria.  And 
Smith's  dictionary  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  our 


414  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

translation  substitutes  a  plural  "unicorns"  for  the  singular 
"reem"  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  17.  "And  his  horns  are  like  the 
horns  of  unicorns,"  as  if  each  animal  had  but  one  horn, 
whereas  the  Hebrew  reads,  "His  horns  are  like  the  horns 
of  a  ream!'  showino;  that  one  animal  had  two  horns.  And 
the  marginal  reading  correctly  says,  "An  unicorn."  The 
Syrian  buffalo  in  its  wild  state  is  evidently  the  creature 
referred  to  by  the  term  unicorn.  Thus  the  science  of 
zoology  has  helped  us  to  expurgate  out  of  our  revised  Eng- 
lish Bible  the  error  introduced  by  the  old  Greek  transla- 
tion and  followed  by  our  King  James'  version. 

Chancellor  Boggs  proceeds  to  consider  some  of  the 
scientific  controversies  which  have  marked  the  history  of 
Christianity. 

The  Geogeaphical  Controversy. 

He  begins  with  the  controversy  which  grew  out  of  the 
modern  geography,  although  this  controversy  was  finished 
before  our  Westminster  standards  were  written.  The 
scriptures  have  occasion  to  refer  to  the  earth,  not  to  teach 
the  science  of  geography,  but  to  set  before  men  the  wis- 
dom, power  and  goodness  of  God.  To  teach  these  relig- 
ious lessons  the  Bible  uses  the  current  expressions  of  those 
times.  There  was  no  other  way,  unless  it  should  invent 
terms  of  its  own,  which  would  have  been  incomprehen- 
sible to  the  people.  Thus  the  scriptures  speak  of  "the 
four  corners  of  the  earth"  as  we  now  speak  of  the  four 
cardinal  points  of  the  compass.  But  when  men  began  to 
reason  about  the  shape  of  the  earth,  this  phrase  on  the 
lips  of  the  people  came  to  be  associated  with  the  scientific 
theory  that  the  earth  is  a  flat,  four-cornered  body.  Then 
when  people  read  the  Bible,  they  read  into  it  this  theory. 
Among  the  seed-thoughts,  however,  bequeathed  by  the 
Greek  mind  to  the  world  was  the  suggestion  made  by 
Plato  and  others  that  the  earth  is  a  globe.  Disregarded 
for  ages  this  idea  reappeared  from  time  to  time  in  various 
places.  But  it  was  utterly  repugnant  to  those  who  found 
their  geography  in  the  Bible.  The  controversy  between 
the  Greek  suggestion  of  a  spherical  earth  and  the  ecclesi- 
astical geography  waxed  hotter  and  hotter,  until  appeared 
a  certain  Cosmas,  surnamed  Indicopleustes,  obviously  be- 


CONTROVERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  415 

cause  he  had  achieved  the  most  unparalleled  feat  of  mak- 
ing a  voyage  to  India.  Searching  his  Bible  for  proofs  of 
the  flat  four-cornered  theory,  he  came  upon  these  words  in 
Hebrews  ix.  1,  "A  worldly  sanctuary."  In  these  words 
Cosmas  finds  scripture  authority  for  his  theory  that  the 
earth  must  be  shaped  like  the  Jewish  sanctuary,  which 
had  four  corners.  Thus  did  Cosmas  settle  the  question, 
and  geography  was  accepted  as  revealed  in  the  scriptures, 
so  that  to  doubt  any  part  of  it  was  to  be  an  infidel. 

This  ecclesiastical  geography  held  on  its  way  for  hun- 
dreds of  years.  When  Columbus  pleaded  for  ships  and 
men  that  he  might  cross  the  Atlantic  this  ecclesiastical 
science  of  geography  opposed  him  fiercely.  If  the  earth 
were  a  globe  there  must  be  antipodes — men  living  oppo- 
site to  our  feet,  so  that  they  would  be  walking  with  their 
heads  hanging  down  like  flies  crawling  on  the  ceiling.  It 
was  only  when  the  proofs  grew  to  be  overwhelming  that 
very  slowly  the  old  error  faded  away,  and  ecclesiastics 
ceased  to  thunder  from  their  pulpits  the  impiety  of  the 
new  science  of  geography.  Of  course,  the  effect  of  this 
folly  was  to  bring  the  church  and  the  Bible  into  contempt 
with  many  intelligent  persons.  But  when  the  storm  had 
ceased  the  Bible  was  found  intact  and  living,  only  certain 
spurious  opinions  that  had  been  associated  with  the  Bible 
wrongfully  had  been  swept  aAvay.  Certain  uninspired  in- 
terpretations of  scripture  had  been  shown  to  be  mistakes. 
But  the  word  of  God  was  unharmed. 

The  Astronomical  Controversy. 

Another  controversy,  says  Chancellor  Boggs,  wdiich  to 
many  of  the  best  men  in  the  world  seemed  to  threaten  the 
very  foundations  of  the  faith,  arose  in  connection  with  the 
new  astronomy.  The  sacred  writers  frequently  refer  to 
the  sun,  moon  and  stars  to  set  forth  the  wisdom,  power 
and  goodness  of  the  Creator.  The  object  is  always  a  re- 
ligious one.  Their  object  never  is  to  teach  us  astronomy. 
They  employ  the  only  language  which  the  men  of  early 
ages  could  comprehend — "the  langiiage  of  the  senses." 
We  also  in  our  day  find  it  necessary  to  use  this  language 
still.  The  British  Nautical  Almanac,  for  example,  which 
is  thoroughly  scientific,  continues  to  speak  of  the  sun  ris- 


41 G  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

in<;  and  setting",  though,  of  course,  the  editors  of  that 
scientific  treatise  know  perfectly  well  that  the  appearance 
and  disappearance  of  the  sun  are  due  not  to  his  motion, 
but  to  the  turning  of  the  earth  on  her  axis  once  in  twenty- 
four  hours. 

But  in  the  course  of  time  men  began  to  reason  and  to 
speculate  about  the  relative  motions  and  magnitudes  of 
the  earth,  the  moon,  sun  and  stars.  And  these  crude  the- 
ories, based  at  first  on  the  obvious  appearances  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  became  rooted  in  the  minds  of  God's 
people.  Naturally  enough,  they  would  unconsciously 
read  these  crude  theories  into  their  Bibles.  Failing  to 
consider  that  the  Bible  is  not  an  encyclopaedia  of  human 
knowledge,  but  a  purely  religious  book,  they  tried  to  fix 
upon  it  the  yoke  of  their  imperfect  science. 

Among  the  priceless  treasures  bequeathed  by  Greek 
thought  to  the  modern  world,  however,  were  the  hints  of  a 
better  astronomy.  Facts  had  been  observed  which  seemed 
to  show  that  the  sun,  not  our  earth,  is  the  centre  of  our 
system  of  worlds,  and  his  apparent  motion  is  our  real 
motion  transferred  to  him.  Instances  of  such  transferred 
motion  were  known  to  the  ancients,  as  when  we  sit  in  a 
boat  as  it  rapidly  recedes  from  the  shore,  we  misjudge  ap- 
pearances and  seem  to  see  the  shore  moving  back  from  us. 
Our  eyes  do  not  deceive  us,  but  we  misjudge  the  sigiis 
wdiich  they  give  us. 

Thus,  step  by  step,  those  who  watched  the  heavenly 
bodies  began  to  detect  those  less  obvious  facts  which  reveal 
the  truth  that  the  sun  stands  still  and  we  move.  By  and 
by  these  hints  fell  upon  fruitful  soil  and  brought  forth 
fruit.  A  certain  priest  of  the  Roman  church,  Kopernik 
by  name,  residing  on  the  borders  of  Poland,  became  a 
deeply  interested  observer  of  the  heavens.  All  that  we 
know  of  him  shows  that  he  led  a  godly  life,  free  from 
scandal  and  given  to  prayer  and  charitable  deeds.  For  a 
time  he  was  professor  of  astronomy  at  Rome,  and  without 
rebuke  w^as  allowed  to  expound  his  view  ' 'purely  as  a 
hypothesis."  After  awhile  he  became  convinced  that  the 
hypothesis  was  true.  But  he  also  knew  tliat  Rome  was  a 
very  unsafe  place  in  which  to  say  what  he  thought.  Re- 
turning to  his  parish  on  the  borders  of  Poland  he  medi- 


CONTEOVEESIES    OF   SCIENCE.  417 

tated,  prayed,  and  then  wrote  his  book.  With  the  utmost 
secrecy  it  was  printed,  and  when  lie  lay  upon  his  death- 
bed, assured  by  his  physician  that  he  had  but  a  few  hours 
to  live,  he  sent  for  his  immortal  work,  kissed  it,  prayed 
over  it',  and  then  sent  it  out  no  more  as  a  "mere  hypoth- 
esis," but  as  a  demonstrated  truth  to  revolutionize  the  con- 
ceptions of  mankind  as  to  the  grandeur  and  glory  of  this 
mighty  universe.  Death  had  placed  him  beyond  the 
reach  of  torture,  but  it  did  not  save  his  memory  from  re- 
proach as  an  innovator  and  an  enemy  of  the  word  of  God. 
And  yet  upon  his  tombstone  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
of  Christian  epitaphs :  ''I  ask  not,  Lord,  that  grace  which 
thou  gavest  to  Peter  and  to  Paul,  but  such  mercy  as  thou 
didst  show  to  the  thief  on  the  cross."  Yet  the  Pope  caused 
his  book,  demonstrating  that  the  sun  is  the  fixed  centre 
around  which  the  earth  and  sister  planets  revolve,  to  be 
inserted  on  the  Index  Frohihitorum  LihroriDti,  which  can 
only  be  read  at  the  risk  of  one's  soul. 

Nor  was  the  Roman  church  alone  in  her  denunciation 
of  the  Copernican  heresy.  Luther  railed  at  the  true 
science  after  this  fashion,  "People  gave  ear  to  an  upstart 
astrologer  who  strove  to  show  that  the  earth  revolves,  not 
the  heavens  or  the  firmament,  the  sun  and  the  moon.  .  .  . 
This  fool  wishes  to  reverse  the  entire  science  of  astron- 
omy, but  sacred  scripture  tells  us  that  Joshua  commanded 
the  sun  to  stand  still  and  not  the  earth."  The  mild  and 
gentle  Melanchthon  was  not  a  whit  behind  his  great  leader 
in  his  indignant  denunciations :  ''Now  it  is  a  want  of  hon- 
esty and  decency  to  assert  such  notions  publicly,  and  the 
example  is  pernicious.  It  is  the  part  of  a  good  mind  to 
accept  the  truth  as  revealed  by  God  and  to  acquiesce  in 
it."  He  then  cites  passages  to  show  what  he  imagines  to 
be  the  science  taught  in  the  Bible.  Calvin,  too,  condemns 
all  who  say  that  the  earth  is  not  the  centre  around  which 
•sun  and  stars  revolve,  citing  the  scripture  and  demanding, 
"Who  will  venture  to  place  the  authority  of  Copernicus 
above  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?" 

It  is  a  sorrowful  tale  of  poor  Galileo.  His  telescope 
revealed  to  him  the  phases  of  Venus,  and  he  saw  the  beau- 
tiful moons  of  Jupiter  revolving  around  the  mighty 
-planet,  but  his  knowledge  cost  him  dear.     He  was  im- 


41S  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

prisoned,  dragged  before  the  Inquisition  and  forced  to» 
perjure  himself  in  order  to  escape  death.  Ecclesiastical 
science  continned  to  be  taught  in  the  nniversities  of  th& 
churches,  Roman  and  Protestant.  Men  came  through 
their  knowledge  of  God's  word  to  hate  the  church,  and,, 
alas !  for  them,  to  reject  the  Bible,  which  they  were  per- 
suaded by  even  ministers  of  the  gospel  held  false  views  as 
to  the  earth  and  sun.  But  when  the  storm  passed  by,  it 
was  found  entirely  possible  to  hold  to  the  Bible  and  the 
Copernican  science. 

The  Geological  Controversy. 

This  controversy.  Chancellor  Boggs,  strictly  speaking,, 
says,  belongs  to  our  outi  age.  Yet  hints  of  the  vast  an- 
tiquity of  the  earth  had  been  dropped  by  some  clear- 
headed thinkers  of  ancient  Greece.  The  suggestion  was 
treated  with  scorn  by  such  good  men  as  Lactantius,  called 
''The  Christian  Cicero,"  and  by  that  far  greater  man,. 
Augustine,  of  Hippo  in  North  Africa,  who  anticipated 
Calvin  in  developing  from  the  scriptures  that  very  system 
of  doctrine  which  is  embodied  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  Jerome,  the  great  biblical  scholar,  ex- 
plained the  twisted  and  broken  strata  of  the  earth  as  spe- 
cial expressions  of  God's  wrath  against  sin.  The  eloquent 
and  vehement  Tertullian  made  a  suggestion  that  was  to 
bear  fruit  in  future.  The  fossils,  he  thought,  were  all  of 
them  the  effects  of  the  Noachian  deluge. 

Curious  indeed  were  the  speculations  of  the  schoolmen 
respecting  these  fossils.  Some  said  fossils  are  due  to  a 
"stone-making  force  in  nature."  Some  considered  them 
to  possess  powers  of  propagation  like  animals  and  plants. 
The  Eeformers  gave  no  encouragement  to  these  over- 
curious  inquiries  into  the  processes  of  creation.  Pfeiffer, 
eminent  in  the  Lutheran  church  in  Germany,  in  his  Pan- 
sophia  Mosaica,  sought  to  beat  back  all  such  efforts  to  be 
wise  beyond  the  letter  of  scripture.  Sir  ]\Iatthew  Hale, 
the  eminent  English  lawyer  and  judge,  took  the  same 
ground  against  scientific  investigation  into  matters  of 
which  scripture  treats.  Leonardo  da  Vinci  in  Italy  and 
Palissy  of  France  caught  glimpses  of  the  truth,  but  their- 
thoughts  were  smothered  by  the  theologians  under  suchi 


COXTEOVEKSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  419^ 

high-sounding  phrases  as  "lapidific  force,"  "seminal 
air,"  "tumultuous  movement  of  terrestrial  exhalations." 
And  finally  appeared  the  happy  thought,  "sports  of  na- 
ture," intimating  the  wonderful  idea  that  God  had  just 
chosen  without  any  apparent  design  to  put  these  curious 
shells,  bones  and  tracks  into  the  fossil  beds  just  as  they 
appear  without  having  created  any  animal  creatures  to- 
whom  they  belonged.  Thus  the  farce  went  on.  BufFon^ 
the  eminent  French  naturalist,  stated  clearly  the  princi- 
ples of  geology.  But  he  found,  poor  man,  that  he  was  pre- 
mature. The  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  took  him  in  hand 
for  attacking  the  authority  of  scripture  and  extorted  from 
him  a  recantation  through  terror.  Well  done,  thou  Ro- 
man Church  in  France !  But  Protestants  in  England  and 
America  were  not  behind  her.  Bishop  Burnet,  John  Wes- 
ley, Adam  Clarke,  Richard  Watson,  William  Cowper 
(the  writer  of  sweet  hymns),  Moses  Stuart  of  Andover, 
and  a  host  of  other  excellent  men,  pooh-poohed  and  jeered 
and  scolded  and  anathematized  geology  and  geologists. 
The  bones  of  a  great  fossil  lizard  being  unearthed  in  Ger- 
many, out  came  the  learned  Scheuchzer's  explanation,, 
which  set  scientists  to  laughing  and  cursing:  Homo  Dilu- 
vii  Testis — "A  Man  [Lizard!]  Witnessing  to  the  Del- 
uge." But  such  pious  explanations  were  offensive  to  Vol- 
taire, who  in  the  interests  of  infidelity  sought  to  efface  the- 
testimony  of  fossils  to  the  Xoachian  deluge  by  the  origi- 
nal hypothesis  that  the  fossil  fishes  discovered  in  the  Alps 
were  the  remains  of  the  fish  provided  by  pilgrims  for  their 
journeys ;  the  fossil  shells,  he  said,  were  oyster  shells  cast 
away  by  travellers  who  had  eaten  their  contents,  while  an 
immense  fossil  animal  was  a  skeleton  from  the  museum 
of  some  ancient  philosopher  ! 

But,  little  by  little,  truth  has  prevailed.  Inch  by  inch, 
the  mistaken  friends  of  the  Bible  have  been  driven  from 
the  field.  A  human  interpretation  has  perished,  but  the 
word  of  our  God  abideth  forever. 

The  Evolutiox  Coin^troveesy. 

Properly  speaking  the  question  of  evolution  concerns 
the  possibility  of  the  development  of  a  new  species.  The 
exact  point  at  issue  between  the  older  science  and  the  new 


420  MY  LIFE  AINTD  TIMES. 

was  this :  Are  the  species  of  plants  and  animals  absolutely 
fixed  and  immutable,  or  are  they  liable  to  such  variations 
that  under  favorable  conditions  new  species  may  arise  by 
the  processes  of  natural  birth  from  older  species  ?  To 
this  question  the  older  science,  as  represented  by  Cuvier 
and  Agassiz,made  answer  that  species  are  absolutely  fixed 
within  certain  lines  of  variation  that  can  never  be  crossed. 
As  they  first  appear,  so  they  continue  until  they  disappear 
forever.  But  the  new  science  represented  by  Darwin, 
Wallace,  Mivart,  Huxley,  Helmholtz,  and  other  authori- 
ties, holds  that  species  are  mutable ;  that  the  lines  of 
■separation  are  not  immovable,  but  that  under  favorable 
conditions  new  species  of  plants  and  animals  may  arise  by 
natural  birth,  the  offspring  being  sufficiently  unlike  their 
parents  to  constitute  the  new  species. 

Both  the  old  science  and  the  new  seem,  however,  to 
agree  that  the  evolution  doctrine  is  still  open  to  discus- 
sion, though  only  as  an  hypothesis,  because,  as  they  gen- 
erally seem  to  think,  in  point  of  fact,  no  instance  of  the 
origin  of  a  new  species  has  as  yet  fallen  under  human  ob- 
servation. The  evidence  for  evolution  is  circumstantial 
only. 

Here  ends  Chancellor  Boggs's  admirable  introduction  to 
my  history  of  the  evolution  controversy. 

The  new  scientists,  so  far  as  I  understand  the  matter, 
think  they  have  discovered  satisfactorily  that  the  animal 
creation  consisted  in  the  beginning  of  a  very  few  species 
with  such  a  constitution  of  their  nature  as  that  from  them 
other  species  might  naturally  arise  occasionally.  But 
here  at  the  very  beginning  of  these  investigations  we  find 
theistic  and  atheistic  evolutionists — the  one  class  believ- 
ing in  a  personal  God,  the  creator  of  all,  the  other  class 
worshipping  only  what  they  call  Xaturc.  Both  classes 
work  peaceably  and  harmoniously  together  in  their 
studies  of  natural  science  excepting  in  relation  to  that  one 
point  of  difference.  They  both  trace  the  successively  aris- 
ing new  species  onwards  and  upwards  until  they  come  to 
man.  Here  the  atheistic  evolutionists  find  in  mankind  as 
much  a  simple  product  of  evolution  as  any  race  of  animals 
that  preceded  them.  But  the  theistic  evolutionists  find  in 
Adam  the  topmost  glory  of  God's  creating  work  upon  the 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  421 

earth.  The  atheistic  evolutionists,  of  course,  renounce 
God  together  with  both  his  works  and  his  word.  But  the 
theistic  evolutionists  are  Christian  men,  believing  every 
word  of  the  Bible,  and  maintaining  that  the  Creator's 
word  and  works,  each  rightly  understood,  cannot  contra- 
dict each  other.  These  will  not  shut  their  eyes  to  any 
light  which  science  really  and  truly  sets  before  them. 
They  put  God's  revealed  word  in  the  Bible  above  any  hu- 
man science.  With  them  there  is  no  error  in  the  scrip- 
tures as  God  originally  gave  them,  and  so  they  maintain 
that  science  also,  rightly  understood,  can  tell  no  lies. 
These  persons  allow  full  liberty  to  scientific  investigation, 
satisfied  that  its  work  is  not  yet  fully  accomplished. 
While  the  canon  of  scripture  was  closed  when  the  inspired 
John  finished  the  Apocalypse,  "unto  which  scriptures 
nothing  is  at  any  time  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revela- 
tions of  the  Spirit  or  traditions  of  men,"  yet  on  the  other 
hand,  science,  no  doubt,  has  and  shall  have  much  more  to 
say  in  its  o^vn  peculiar  line,  and  intelligent  believers  in 
tlie  Bible  are  waiting  to  hear  and  to  judge. 

I  have  just  said  that,  according  to  my  understanding  of 
the  matter,  the  theistic  evolutionists  find  in  Adam  the 
topmost  glory  of  God's  creating  work  upon  the  earth. 
They  seem  to  me  to  understand  that  it  was  the  Trinity 
who  spake  those  words,  "Let  us  make  man  in  our  image 
after  our  likeness,  and  let  them  have  dominion  over  all 
our  created  work.  So  God  created  man  in  his  o\vn  image ; 
in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him,  male  and  female 
created  he  them."  God  is  one,  yet  God  reveals  himself  as 
existing  in  three  persons  holding  communion  with  one 
another,  which  is  an  insoluble  mystery  humbly  believed 
by  us,  yet  impossible  to  be  comprehended  by  the  human 
mind.  And  so  God  creates  man,  but  not  Adam  alone,  for 
out  of  Adam's  side  he  evolves  an  help  meet  for  Adam,  so 
that  while  Adam  was  created  an  individual,  he  was  yet  to 
be  the  head  of  a  race,  he  was  to  constitute  a  new  species, 
and  then  God  blessed  them,  and  said  unto  them,  Be  fruit- 
ful and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth  and  subdue  it. 

I  suppose  that  in  a  certain  sense  the  history  of  theistic 
evolution  may  be  said  to  end  here.  Rather  let  me  say 
this  hypothesis  recognizes  here  a  miraculous  interruption 


422  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

of  its  course.  Only  the  body  of  man,  according  to  it,  was 
evolved,  that  is,  mediately  created,  while  the  Creator  im- 
mediately unites  to  that  body  a  rational  and  immortal 
•spirit,  so  that  Adam  arises,  who  is  the  glory  of  God's  cre- 
ating work  on  the  earth.  Then,  as  the  theistic  evolution- 
ist reads  in  scripture,  from  the  body  of  this  immortal 
•creature  thrown  into  a  deep  sleep  one  rib  is  taken,  and  out 
of  it  Eve  is  created  a  help  meet  for  Adam,  and  they  be- 
come the  parents  of  the  whole  human  race  with  all  its 
varieties,  for,  as  the  Bible  says,  God  has  made  of  one 
blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the 
earth.  Here  again  begins  evolution,  but  it  is  of  a  new 
sort,  for  no  new  species  have  ever  been  or  ever  will  be 
evolved.  With  the  creation  of  this  human  race  the  Cre- 
ator's work  of  evolving  successive  species  is  finished.  He 
is  still  creating,  but  he  evolves  no  new  species  of  created 
animals.  The  theistic  evolutionist  quotes  for  this  view 
that  after  creating  man,  ''God  rested  on  the  seventh  day 
from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made."  He  had  gradually 
Ijrought  into  being  every  kind  of  animal  and  plant  neces- 
-sary  for  man's  comfort.  This  was  the  end  he  had  kept  in 
-view  from  the  beginning,  preparing  for  the  highest,  the 
human  creature,  a  suitable  habitation  on  this  earth.  The 
Psalmist  says,  "The  heaven,  even  the  heavens  are  the 
Lord's,  but  the  earth  hath  he  given  to  the  children  of 
men."  Thus  they  constitute  a  royal  race,  having  domin- 
ion over  all  things  upon  this  earth,  and  wearing  the  very 
image  and  likeness  of  their  Creator.  But  our  Saviour 
tells  us,  "My  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  work."  Thus 
God's  work  of  creation  widely  considered  has  never 
ended.  He  has  not  rested  from  that  work.  It  is  he  that 
created  every  animal  including  insect,  fish,  reptile,  bird 
or  beast  that  has  ever  come  into  being  since  the  first  six 
days'  work,  but  he  has  created  them  mediately.  Just  so 
has  he  created  mediately  the  body  of  every  child  of  Adam 
that  ever  was  born,  but  the  spirit  of  every  such  child  he 
has  created  immediately.  Theistic  evolution  maintains 
that  in  respect  of  these  last  his  work  before  and  after  the 
six  days  has  ever  been  precisely  alike,  human  bodies  me- 
diately created,  human  spirits  immediately. 

Here  now  come  the  opposers  of  theistic  evolution  alleg- 


CONTROVERSIES   OF   SCIENCE.  423 

iug  that  this  theory  degrades  Adam,  head  of  the  royal 
race.  But  it  is  answered,  Adam  degraded  himself;  and 
it  might  be  asked  if  your  pride  cannot  bow  to  the  idea 
that  the  body  of  Adam  the  First  had  its  origin  among  a 
race  of  innocent  brutes,  how  can  your  faith  glory  in  be- 
lieving that  Adam  the  Second,  the  eternal  Son  of  God, 
took  to  himself  a  body  and  dwelt  in  it  for  thirty-three 
years,  and  will  dwell  in  it  forever,  that  had  its  origin 
amongst  a  race  of  guilty  sinners,  while  it  was  also  nour- 
ished during  all  his  life  on  earth  by  the  flesh  of  beasts  ? 

This  general  statement  of  the  case  as  to  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution  would  seem  to  show  that  unless  the  Bible  is 
to  be  taken  as  a  truly  scientific  book  there  could  be  little 
chance  for  a  collision  between  it  and  the  theistic  evolution 
theory.  In  all  the  previous  conflicts  of  physical  science 
with  the  Bible,  this  mistake  had  been  made  by  those  who 
believed  the  scriptures.  Evolution,  theistically  under- 
stood, is  a  purely  secular  question,  not  at  all  affecting  re- 
ligion, which  is  all  that  the  Bible  is  intended  to  teach.  Its 
commission  was  not  to  teach  zoology,  nor  geography,  nor 
astronomy,  nor  geology,  nor  anything  about  what  God 
may  have  done  upon  this  globe  before  he  gave  it  its  pres- 
ent form  and  other  arrangements,  and  finally  placed  it 
under  man  as  its  ruler  and  lord.  It  was  revealed  simply 
to  teach  what  man,  this  final  product  of  creation,  '^is  to 
believe  concerning  God  and  what  duty  God  requires  of 
man."  But  now  a  new^  mistake  was  added  to  the  old  one 
— the  mistake  of  supposing  that  the  study  of  God's  works 
could  evolve  a  contradiction  of  his  word,  or  that  physical 
science,  properly  interpreted,  could  tend  to  atheism. 
These  are  the  points  around  which  revolved  our  evolution 
controversy  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church. 

I  must  now  take  the  reader  back  some  twenty-five  years 
to  give  some  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Perkins  profes- 
sorship, which  has  been  involved  in  this  controversy.  It 
was  in  the  fall  of  1859  that  the  Synods  of  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  and  Alabama,  in  accordance  with  the  conditions 
annexed  to  the  generous  endowment  conferred  on  them 
by  the  Hon.  Judge  Perkins  of  ''The  Oaks,"  near  Colum- 
bus, Miss.,  added  to  the  existing  departments  of  instruc- 
tion in  the  Seminary,  a  chair  to  be  entitled  ''The  Perkins 


424  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Professorship  of  jSTatural  Science  in  Connection  with 
Kevelation;  the  design  of  which  shall  be  to  evince  the 
harmony  of  science  with  the  records  of  our  faith,  and  to 
refute  the  objections  of  infidel  naturalists."  Well  do  I 
remember  the  extreme  delight  with  which  Dr.  Thornwell 
welcomed  this  addition  to  our  Seminary  course  of  instruc- 
tion, how  highly  he  appreciated  the  service  done  the  Sem- 
inary at  Columbia  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  A.  Lyon,  the  pastor 
of  the  venerable  Judge  Perkins,  in  assisting  him  to  give 
the  precise  description  of  the  object  to  which  his  munifi- 
cent endowment  was  to  be  applied.  Dr.  Thornwell  did 
not  share  at  all  in  the  apprehensions  expressed  by  Dr. 
Dabney,  that  the  instructions  of  such  a  chair  must  have  "a 
tendency  towards  naturalistic  and  anti-Christian  opin- 
ions." He  threw  himself  with  the  greatest  ardor  into  as- 
sisting the  endeavors  of  the  Board  of  Directors  to  perfect 
the  arrangements  respecting  this  new  chair. 

It  fell  first  to  the  Synod  of  Georgia  to  choose  the  in- 
cumbent of  this  new  chair,  and  they  voted  to  place  in  it 
the  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  A.  M.,  and  in  due  time  his 
election  was  confirmed  by  the  other  associated  Synods  of 
Alabama  and  South  Carolina.  Thus  it  came  about  that 
his  inaugural  was  not  delivered  until  November  22,  1861, 
at  the  succeeding  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  in  the 
town  of  Marietta.  It  was  delivered,  however,  not  to  the 
Synod,  but  to  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Seminary, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  their  official  counsel  as 
to  the  discharge  of  his  new  duties. 

The  Inaugural  Address. 

The  newly  elected  professor  began  his  inaugural  by 
expressing  his  "oppressive  sense  of  responsibility  and  self 
distrust."  Those  feelings  were  increased  by  the  fact  that 
he  was  called  to  organize  an  entirely  new  department  of 
instruction  without  a  single  similar  chair  in  any  theolog- 
ical school  either  in  America  or  Europe  to  serve  as  a 
model,"  the  chair  of  Xatural  Science  in  the  New  (Theo- 
logical) College  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  at  Edin- 
burgh, ''forming  no  exception,  because  of  the  great  differ- 
ence of  design  in  the  two  chairs."  The  task  assigned  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow  was  all  the  more  difficult  on  account  of 


CONTKOVEESIES    OF    SCIENCE.  425 

the  various  and  even  conflicting  views  which  prevailed 
respecting  its  natnre,  and  the  brief  and  somewhat  indefi- 
nite instrnctions  given  him  in  the  resolutions  of  the  three 
synods.  He  was  therefore  glad  of  the  ''opportunity  to 
present  his  own  views  of  what  they  had  given  him  to  do, 
and  of  the  mode  and  spirit  in  which  it  ought  to  be  done, 
so  that,  if  he  had  not  mistaken  their  design,  he  might  go 
forward  the  more  confidently ;  but  that  if  he  had  misap- 
prehended it,  he  might  have  the  benefit  of  their  counsels, 
and  their  instructions  in  changing,  restricting,  or  extend- 
ing his  plans." 

The  Professor  went  on  to  say  that  the  general  de- 
sign was  evident  enough,  and  then  to  set  forth  three  dif- 
ferent  methods  in  which,  as  he  supposed,  it  might  be  exe- 
cuted : 

''First,  the  harmony  may  be  evinced  by  showing  that 
science  proves  the  existence  of  God,  and  that  he  has  at- 
tributes identical,  as  far  as  nature  reveals  them,  with  such 
as  are  ascribed  to  him  in  his  word. 

''Secondly,  the  harmony  may  be  evinced  by  observing 
the  analogy  which  subsists  between  nature  and  revelation 
in  other  respects  than  those  which  it  belongs  to  natural 
theology  to  consider. 

"Thirdly,  it  may  be  the  design  of  the  professorship  to 
evince  the  harmony  only  where  it  has  been  doubted  or 
denied,  or  where  opinions  prevailing  among  scientific  men 
either  are  or  are  supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with  our 
sacred  records ;  in  other  words,  to  scrutinize  the  nature 
and  the  force  of  current  and  popular  objections  to  the 
scriptures ;  to  meet  them,  and  to  set  them  aside  by  prov- 
ing that  they  spring  either  from  science  falsely  so-called, 
or  from  incorrect  interpretations  of  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Bible.  This  would  involve  a  careful  study  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  various  branches  of  science  from 
which  the  objections  are  drawn,  and  of  their  details  car- 
ried far  enough  to  enable  one  to  judge  correctly  of  the 
amount  of  truth  in  each  objection.  It  would  involve  fur- 
ther the  careful  study  of  the  principles  of  biblical  inter- 
pretation as  far  as  these  relate  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
works  of  God  are  spoken  of.  The  comparison  of  the  re- 
sults obtained  thus,  if  the  processes  have  been  properly 


426  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

condiictcd,  must  inevitably  evince  entire  harmony,  or,  at 
least,  the  entire  absence  of  discord." 

The  Professor  said  he  regarded  this  last  as  the  field 
on  which  most  labor  was  to  be  expended;  not  that  the 
first  tAvo  are  to  be  wholly  neglected.  And  if  this  be  the 
correct  view  of  the  field  set  before  him,  it  will  be  proper 
to  look  more  into  the  details  and  state  some  of  the  points 
of  supposed  antagonism  between  science  and  the  scrip- 
tures. 

1.  It  is  affirmed  as  explicit  teaching  of  scripture  that 
the  whole  material  universe  was  brought  out  of  absolute 
non-existence  not  quite  six  thousand  years  ago ;  from  the 
first  beginning  of  creation  till  the  first  human  being  not 
quite  six  days  elapsed.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  held  that 
the  earth  had  been  in  existence  during  immense  and  im- 
measurable periods  of  time  prior  to  the  creation  of  the 
first  living  being  that  has  left  any  trace  on  the  earth.  In- 
timately connected  is  the  question  relating  to  the  intro- 
duction of  death.  Was  there  death  before  Adam's  sin  ? 
Was  death,  millions  of  ages  previously,  connected  with 
the  first  sin  of  man  ?  One  side  denies ;  others  think 
scripture  affirms  that  death  was  utterly  unknown  before 
the  fall. 

Then  there  are  opposite  views  respecting  the  Xoachian 
deluge. 

The  unity  of  the  human  race  is  another  point  of  an- 
tagonism. 

2.  Other  branches  of  knowledge  come  under  the  con- 
sideration of  this  chair  because  they  have  some  connection 
with  natural  science  and  its  controversy  with  the  Bible, 
or  at  least  they  are  so  regarded  in  the  popular  mind. 
Egypt  and  her  monuments ;  the  antiquity  of  the  Chinese 
and  the  Hindoos  and  other  Eastern  nations  belong  to  this 
class.  The  established  chronology  of  these  nations,  it  is 
claimed,  sets  aside  by  irrefragable  proofs  that  of  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  as  entirely  worthless,  the  fabrication  of 
some  modern  sciolist.  While  it  is  held  by  many  students 
of  the  Bible  that  man  was  created  less  than  six  thousand 
years  ago,  in  opposition  to  this  we  are  told  that  man  has 
been  in  existence  not  less  than  thirty  thousand  to  one  hun- 
dred thousand  years,  and  that  this  has  been  proved  by  the 


COXTEOVEESIES    OF    SCIENCE.  427 

archseological  monuments  and  the  authentic  chronology 
of  many  nations,  no  less  than  by  geology  and  palaeon- 
tology. 

The  Professor  went  on  to  say  that  such  were  some  of 
the  questions  showing  the  nature  of  all  which  it  would 
be  his  duty  to  discuss  before  the  Seminary  classes.  But 
what  is  the  method  to  be  pursued  and  in  what  spirit  are 
these  investigations  to  be  carried  on,  and  what  results  may 
be  anticipated  ?  Evidently  "it  will  be  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain whether  science  and  revelation  agree  or  disagTee 
without  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  both,  as  far  as  they 
are  to  be  compared.  To  gain  this,  then,  would  seem  to  be 
the  first  thing  to  be  done.  While  thus  engaged  the  most 
untrammelled  freedom  of  inquiry  must  be  allowed ;  and 
on  both  classes  of  subjects  our  decisions  must  be  regulated 
by  their  proper  evidence.  In  this  preliminary  investiga- 
tion we  must  neither  be  governed  in  our  views  of  natural 
science  by  what  we  may  have  believed  to  be  taught  in  the 
Bible;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  must^we  do  violence  to  the 
words  of  the  Bible  under  the  influence  of  our  belief  in 
any  supposed  teachings  of  science.  There  must  be  the 
most  unbiassed  readiness  to  accept  as  truth  whatever  is 
proved.  And  yet,  at  the  same  time  that  we  advance  with 
the  fullest  liberty,  it  should  be  with  the  profoundest  hu- 
mility and  distrust  of  our  own  powers,  joined  with  the 
deepest  reverence  for  all  that  God  makes  known  to  us 
both  in  his  works  and  in  his  word.  Under  the  influence 
of  such  feelings,  and  proceeding  with  the  firm  conviction 
that  truth,  like  its  Author,  is  one,  we  can  hardly  fail  to 
make  progress  in  all  attainable  knowledge ;  while  we  will 
be  kept  from  the  folly  of  believing  that  there  are  real 
inconsistencies,  demonstrating  error  on  one  side  or  other, 
merely  because  we  have  not  succeeded  in  comprehending 
the  actual  mode  in  Avhich  the  different  sections  of  the 
truth  are  related  to  each  other.  Believing  firmly  and  cor- 
dially that  every  part  of  the  Bible  is  the  very  word  of 
God,  and  that,  therefore,  every  part  of  it  is  absolutely  true 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  the  design  of  its  real  author, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it  should  be  understood,  I  also 
firmly  believe  that  nothing  will  be  found  inconsistent 
with  it  in  the  established  teachino-s  of  natural  science  as 


428  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

it  is  expounded  bv  its  own  votaries,  and  as  its  propositions 
are  determined  according  to  its  o^^^l  laws  of  investigation. 
Contradiction  would  necessarily  imply  a  w^ant  of  truth 
somewhere ;  but  this,  I  think  it  may  be  made  to  appear 
by  the  most  rigorous  reasoning,  does  not  exist.  And  in  all 
cases  where  there  are  still  unadjusted  apparent  diflfer- 
ences,  which  it  must  be  admitted  do  exist,  it  can  be  shown 
that  it  is  infinitely  more  probable  that  they  result  from 
imperfect  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  or 
of  the  bearing  of  the  scientific  truth,  or  both,  than  from 
any  real  inconsistency.  There  are  independent  proposi- 
tions in  intellectual  and  moral  science,  and  even  in  the- 
ology, which  are  seemingly  inconsistent  and  almost  con- 
tradictory;  and  yet  we  never  think  of  abandoning  our 
belief  in  any  of  them,  if  each  stands  on  a  firm  basis  of  its 
own.  In  no  case  do  the  imperfectly  understood  relations 
under  consideration  present  more  serious  difficulties  than 
these,  and  very  seldom  as  serious.  I  further  believe  that 
there  is  no  seeming  discrepancy  where  the  denial  of  the 
truth  on  either  side  would  not  involve  vastly  more  per- 
plexing embarrassment  than  its  reception  on  both.  We 
have  nothing  to  fear  for  the  records  of  our  faith  from  the 
freest  examination  in  every  direction.  Let  antiquity  be 
searched ;  let  the  created  universe  be  scrutinized,  as  far 
as  the  human  intellect  so  gifted  by  its  Creator  can  reach ; 
though  in  the  process  we  shall  see  many  errors  which  have 
clung  around  our  own  minds,  and  which  may  have  pre- 
vented our  seeing  the  meaning  of  the  divine  word,  still 
that  word  will  derive  continually  new  lustre  from  every 
advance  in  knowledge,  and  unbelievers  will  at  each  step 
be  more  and  more  without  excuse  for  their  irrational 
doubts." 

Of  the  concluding  parts  of  the  inaugural  this  may  be 
considered  the  smn :  the  Professor  believes  and  will  teach 
that  there  are  no  errors  in  nature ;  none  in  the  Bible,  the 
original  text  being  given.  He  holds  the  absolute  iner- 
rancy of  the  text  in  the  book  of  nature,  and  the  very  same 
of  the  book  of  revelation,  there  being  given  the  true  in- 
terpretation of  the  former  and  the  true  interpretation  of 
the  latter.  Thus  provided  we  cannot  have  any  conflict, 
for  all  truth,  like  its  Author,  is  one.     Therefore,  if  tliore 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  429 

be  any  variance,  there  must  be  (1)  false  text  or  (2)  false 
interpretation  of  nature  or  of  scripture,  one  or  both,  or 
possibly  only  a  false  inference  from  some  truth  in  nature 
or  some  truth  in  revelation.  Adjust  these — false  text,  or 
false  interpretation,  or  false  inference — and  the  supposed 
lack  of  harmony  vanishes. 

This  inaugural  address  most  probably,  although  im- 
mediately published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review 
of  January,  1862,  attracted  very  little  attention.  The 
war  had  just  begun  and  both  the  Professor  and  his  stu- 
dents were  very  soon  in  its  service,  as  well  as  many  of  the 
ministers  of  our  church.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  had  our 
ministers,  elders,  and  other  intelligent  members  of  the 
church  generally,  become  possessed  of  the  Professor's 
views  and  duly  considered  them,  possibly  there  had  arisen 
no  evolution  controversy.  There  can  be  no  falsehoods  in 
the  book  of  nature,  said  the  Professor,  and  there  can  be 
none  in  the  book  of  revelation.  If  only  both  be  correctly 
understood,  they  cannot  contradict  each  other,  for  they 
have  one  author.  Both,  however,  present  mysteries,  many 
of  them  insoluble  by  us.  Both  deserve  at  our  hands  the 
most  humble,  reverent,  patient  and  laborious  investiga- 
tion, and  "there  must  be  allowed  to  any  who  would  com- 
pare them  together  in  the  fear  of  God  who  gave  them,  un- 
trammelled freedom  of  inquiry.  We  must  neither  be 
governed  in  our  views  of  natural  science  by  what  we  may 
have  understood  to  have  been  taught  in  the  Bible  ;  nor,  on 
the  other  hand,  must  we  do  violence  to  the  words  of  the 
Bible  under  the  influence  of  our  acceptance  of  any  sup- 
posed teachings  of  science.  There  must  be  the  most  un- 
biassed readiness  to  accept  as  truth  whatever  is  unques- 
tionably proved."  These  views  were  just  and  true  as  put 
forth  at  Marietta,  Ga.,  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  and 
would  have  been  useful  if  well  understood  then  and  after- 
wards.    They  are  just  and  true  now. 

But  in  proportion  as  the  views  of  Darwin  and  some 
other  students  of  physical  science  like  Darwin  came  to 
attract  the  attention  of  intelligent  men  amongst  us,  min- 
isters and  elders  who  had  not  seen  or  read  what  had  been 
«et  forth  by  Dr.  Woodrow  in  his  inaugural  began  to  in- 
quire into  the  bearing  of  the  new  physical  science  upon  a 


430 


MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 


number  of  doctrines  which  they  had  always  supposed  to  be 
taught  in  the  Bible.  Moreover,  as  a  professor  at  Colum- 
bia Theological  Seminary  had  been  set  apart  especially  to 
make  a  study  of  physical  science  in  its  relations  with  rev- 
elation, it  was  very  natural  that  there  should  arise  a  cu- 
riosity amongst  our  people  to  know  what  this  professor 
would  have  to  say  about  evolution,  which  was  one  of  the 
questions  which  had  recently  arisen  in  the  progress  of 
scientific  discovery.  An  open  and  straightforward  de- 
mand for  the  publication  of  his  views  would  have  been 
perfectly  legitimate  and  altogether  suitable  and  becoming. 
It  is  just  here  that  w^e  reach  the  circumstances  which  gave 
rise  to  the  evolution  controversy  in  our  church.  I  pro- 
ceed, therefore,  to  set  them  forth  upon  evidence  which 
cannot  be  questioned.  It  is  taken  from  the  records  of  the 
Board  of  Directors. 

"At  a  meeting  of  the  board  on  September  16  and  17,  1884, 
the  following  communication  from  Professor  James  Woodrow  was 
read,  and  the  board  went  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  to  con- 
sider it: 

"Theological  Seminary,  Columbia,  Septemier  16,  1884. 
"To  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Synod 
of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 

"Gentlemeiv:  In  the  autumn  of  1882  your  report  to  the  Synods 
contained  certain  expressions  touching  evolution  which  led  me  to 
regard  it  as  my  duty  to  take  the  earliest  possible  opportunity  to  call 
your  attention  specially  to  my  instructions  on  that  subject  in  the 
class-room,  although  1  had  already  frequently  done  so  at  the  suc- 
cessive annual  examinations.  Accordingly,  at  your  next  meeting,  in 
May,  1883,  I  laid  before  you  a  brief  statement  as  to  the  views  held 
and  taught  by  me.  Thereupon,  after  receiving  this  brief  statement 
that  evolution  does  not  contradict  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  etc.,  you 
did  me  the  honor  to  request  me  to  give  my  views  more  fully  on  this 
topic,  and  to  publish  them  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review, 
since  'scepticism  in  the  world  is  using  alleged  discoveries  in  science 
to  impugn  the  word  of  God.' 

"I  have  acceded  to  your  request,  and  beg  leave  now  to  submit  to 
you  a  copy  of  the  article  which  I  have  published  in  accordance 
with  it. 

"Yours  very  respectfully,  James  Woodrow, 

"Perkins  Professor,  etc."^ 


CONTEOVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  431 

Here  is  tlie  paragraph  which  contained  the  expressions, 
in  the  board's  report  of  1882,  alluded  to  in  the  above  letter 
of  the  Professor : 

"We  bring  you  tidings  of  great  joy,  for  our  beloved  Seminary, 
after  being  closed  for  two  years,  was  reopened  on  September  14th. 
This  should  be  a  subject  of  rejoicing  to  the  whole  church,  for  it  is 
no  unimportant  matter  in  these  days,  when  there  is  so  much  defec- 
tion, even  in  theological  seminaries,  that  our  Southern  Zion  should 
have  another  institution,  manned  by  those  who  are  able  and  apt  to 
teach  the  Westminster  standards,  and  who  are  too  honest  to  secretly 
impugn  the  verbal  inspiration  of  any  part  of  the  original  Scriptures, 
or  to  covertly  teach  evolution  and  other  insidious  errors  that  under- 
mine the  foundations  of  our  precious  faith." 

The  Address  on  Evolution. 

Here,  then,  I  introduce  in  as  condensed  a  form  as  I  can 
the  address,  just  referred  to,  by  the  Perkins  Professor. 
It  was  delivered  on  the  7th  of  May,  1884,  to  the  Alumni 
Association  and  the  Board  of  Directors.  It  was  then  pub- 
lished in  the  July  number  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review  of  that  year,  and  it  will  be  found  in  full  in  Vol. 
XXXV.  of  said  Review.  After  referring  to  the  joint 
request  of  the  two  bodies  named  which  had  called  for  this 
address,  the  Professor  chose  before  entering  on  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  specific  subject  of  evolution  in  itself,  and 
in  its  relations  to  the  sacred  scriptures,  to  consider  the 
relations  subsisting  between  the  teachings  of  the  scrip- 
tures and  the  teachings  of  natural  science  generally. 
"Was  it  antecedently  probable  that  there  is  room  for 
either  agreement  or  disagreement  ?  We  do  not  speak  of 
the  harmony  between  mathematics  and  chemistry  or  be- 
tween zoology  and  astronomy,  or  the  reconciliation  of 
physics  and  metaphysics.  Why  ?  Because  the  subject 
matter  of  each  of  these  branches  of  knowledge  is  so  dif- 
ferent from  the  rest.  We  may  say  that  some  assertion 
made  by  astronomy  cannot  be  correct  because  it  contra- 
dicts some  known  truth  of  mathematics  or  physics.  But 
yet  in  such  case  we  would  not  proceed  to  look  for  harmony 
or  reconciliation ;  we  would  confine  ourselves  to  the  task 
of  removing  the  contradiction  by  seeking  the  error  which 
caused  it,  and  which  it  proved  to  exist ;  for  we  know  that, 
as  truth  is  one,  two  contradictories  cannot  both  be  true. 


432  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

"^[ay  it  not  be  that  we  have  here  a  representation  of 
the  probable  relations  between  the  Bible  and  science,  that 
the  contents  are  so  entirely  different  that  it  is  vain  and 
misleading  to  be  searching  for  harmoriie^^;  and  that  we 
should  confine  our  efforts  to  the  examination  of  real  or 
seeming  contradictions  which  may  emerge,  and  rest  satis- 
fied without  attempting  to  go  further,  when  we  have  dis- 
covered that  there  is  no  contradiction  if  it  was  only  seem- 
ing, or  have  pointed  out  the  error  that  caused  it  if  real  ?" 

The  Professor  now  tests  what  he  has  said  by  special 
cases  which  once  caused  trouble,  but  have  now  been  satis- 
factorily disposed  of.  For  example,  the  difficulty  with 
astronomy  growing  out  of  Genesis  i.  16;  Joshua  x.  13. 
He  then  quotes  Calvin,  "Moses  does  not  speak  with  philo- 
sophical acuteness  on  occult  mysteries,  but  relates  those 
thino's  which  are  everywhere  observed,  even  by  the  un- 
cultivated. .  .  .  He  wdio  would  learn  astronomy  and 
other  recondite  arts  let  him  go  elsewhere."    And  he  adds : 

"Calvin's  belief  in  the  geocentric  system  no  more  in- 
terfered with  his  confidence  in  the  Bible  than  does  our 
belief  in  the  heliocentric  system  interfere  with  our  con- 
fidence in  the  same  sure  word." 

The  Professor's  next  illustration  is  from  geography. 
For  centuries  geographers  taught  as  science  that  which 
was  claimed  to  be  in  perfect  accord  witli  the  Bible  in  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  four  winds,  four  corners,  four  quar- 
ters of  the  earth.  So  the  Bible  and  science  were  thus 
found  to  confirm  each  other.  At  last  it  was  discovered 
that  neither  the  Bible  nor  natural  phenomena  set  forth 
what  had  been  supposed.  The  Bible  taught  nothing  about 
the  shape  of  the  earth  and  the  phenomena  of  the  earth  dis- 
proved its  being  a  four-cornered,  immovable  plain.  So 
in  other  cases.  All  this  from  the  past  proves  that  "the 
Bible  does  not  teach  science ;  and  to  take  its  language  in 
a  scientific  sense  is  grossly  to  pervert  its  meaning."  Yet 
the  Professor  insists  the  language  of  the  Bible  in  all  these 
cases  does  "express  the  exact  truth."  When,  for  example, 
it  says  that  the  sun  rises,  sun  sets,  sun  stood  still  in  Gib- 
eon,  it  "conveys  exactly  the  thought  intended."  If  so, 
then  there  is  no  ground  for  saying  that  these  expressions 
are  "inaccurate."    A  phenomenal  truth  is  as  much  a  truth 


COXTKOVEKSIES    OF   SCIEXCE. 


433 


as  is  the  so-called  scientific  explanation  of  it.  Science 
deals  almost  exclusively  with  the  "explanation"  of  phe- 
nomena, but  the  Bible  speaks  of  natural  phenomena  for 
their  own  sake,  and  never  for  the  sake  of  their  explana- 
tion or  their  scientific  relations  to  each  other.  These 
principles  admitted,  many  difficulties  at  once  disappear. 
For  example,  the  Bible  (Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.)  classes 
coney  and  hare  as  animals  that  chew  the  cud ;  the  bat 
amongst  birds ;  the  locust,  the  beetle  and  the  grasshopper 
as  flying  creeping  things  that  go  upon  all  four.  If  these 
are  to  be  regarded  as  "scientific,"  then  we  have  a  "sad 
batch  of  blunders."  But  in  the  sense  intended — to  de- 
scribe phenomena  addressed  to  the  eye — they  are  "cor- 
rectly used."  "We  understand  by  'chewing  the  cud' 
bringing  back  into  the  mouth,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
chewed,  food  which  had  been  previously  swallowed ;  but 
if  those  to  whom  the  words  in  question  were  addressed 
understood  by  them  that  motion  of  the  mouth  which  ac- 
companies chewing,  then  they  would  recognize  by  this 
motion  the  hare  and  the  coney  as  rightly  characterized. 
So  with  the  bat :  in  a  scientific  sense  it  is  not  a  bird ;  it  is 
a  mammal ;  hence  if  we  are  teaching  natural  history  we 
would  grievously  err  in  making  such  a  classification.  But 
in  describing  flying  things  which  do  not  creep,  the  bat 
was  rightly  placed  where  it  is.  Two  years  ago  the  Legis- 
lature of  South  Carolina  enacted  that  *^it  shall  not  be  law- 
ful for  any  person  ...  to  destroy  any  bird  whose 
principal  food  is  insects,  .  .  .  comprising  all  the  va- 
rieties of  birds  represented  by  the  several  families  of 
bats,  whip-poor-wills  .  .  .  humming-birds,  blue- 
birds,' etc.  Does  this  law  prove  that  the  legislature  did 
not  know  that  the  bat  in  a  natural  history  sense  is  not  a 
bird  ?  They  were  not  undertaking  to  teach  zoology ;  they 
wished  to  point  out  the  flying  animals  whose  principal 
food  is  insects,  and  with  all  propriety  and  accuracy  they 
did  it.  So  'going  on  all  four'  when  used  in  reference  to 
the  motion  of  animals  may  fairly  be  taken  as  applying  to 
the  prone  position  of  the  animal  which  is  common  to  the 
quadruped  and  the  insect,  and  not  at  all  to  the  number  of 
feet.  In  this  sense  the  phrase  with  perfect  accuracy  ap- 
plies to  the  horizontal  position  of  the  locust  and  other 


434  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

insects;  while  the  important  natural  history  fact  that 
the  insect  has  six  feet,  and  not  four,  is  perfectly  imma- 
terial." 

In  all  tliese  cases,  as  the  Professor  points  ont,  no  con- 
tradiction is  to  be  found,  hut  we  cannot  say  that  there  is 
any  harmony  here.  Then  he  demands,  ''Is  it  not  point- 
edly suggested  by  these  instances  that  any  exposition  of 
scri])ture  which  seems  to  show  that  natural  science  is 
taught,  is  thereby  proved  to  be  incorrect  ?  For  this  reason 
I  am  strongly  inclined  to  disbelieve  the  popular  interpre- 
tations of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  which  find  there  a 
compendium  of  the  science  of  geology."  "So  in  all  other 
cases  of  supposed  contradiction  of  the  Bible  by  science,  I 
have  found  that  the  fair,  honest  application  of  such  prin- 
ciples has  caused  the  contradiction  to  disappear.  I  have 
found  nothing  in  my  study  of  the  holy  Bible  and  of  nat- 
ural science  that  shakes  my  firm  belief  in  the  divine  in- 
spiration of  every  word  of  that  Bible,  and  in  the  conse^ 
quent  absolute  truth,  the  absolute  inerrancy,  of  every  ex- 
pression which  it  contains,  from  beginning  to  end.  While 
there  are  not  a  few  things  which  I  confess  myself  wholly 
unable  to  understand,  yet  I  have  found  nothing  which- 
contradicts  other  known  truth.  It  ought  to  be  observed 
that  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  I  have 
found  everything  in  the  sacred  scriptures  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  natural  science.  To  reach  this  result  it  would 
be  necessary  to  know  the  exact  meaning  of  every  part  of 
the  scriptures,  and  the  exact  amount  of  truth  in  each 
scientific  proposition.  But  to  show  that  in  any  case  there 
is  no  contradiction,  all  that  is  needed  is  to  show  that  a 
reasonable  supposition  of  what  the  passage  in  question 
may  mean  does  not  contradict  the  proved  truth  in  science. 
We  do  not  need  to  show  that  our  interpretation  must  be 
correct,  but  only  that  it  7nay  be  correct — that  it  is  not 
reached  by  distortion  or  perversion,  but  by  an  honest  ap- 
plication of  admitted  principles  of  exegesis. 

"It  should  be  noted  that  the  matters  respecting  Mdiicli 
there  are  supposed  to  be  inconsistencies  between  the  teach- 
ings of  science  and  the  Bible,  are  such  as  cannot  possibly 
directly  affect  any  moral  or  religious  truth  ;  but  that  they 
derive  their  importance  to  the  Christian  believer  solely 


CONTEOVERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  435' 

from  the  bearing  they  may  have  on  the  truthfulness  of 
the  scriptures.  In  the  name  of  Christianity,  belief  in  the 
existence  of  people  living  on  the  other  side  of  the  earth 
has  been  denounced  as  absurd  and  heretical ;  but  how  is 
any  moral  duty  or  any  doctrine  of  religion  affected  by 
this  belief  ?  unless,  indeed,  it  may  be  from  doubt  it  may- 
cast  upon  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible.  And  with  this 
exception,  what  difference  can  it  make  with  regard  to  any 
relation  between  ourselves  and  our  fello^^^nen  or  between 
ourselves  and  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  whether  the 
earth  came  into  existence  six  thousand  years  ago  or  six 
thousand  million  years  ago ;  whether  the  earth  is  flat  or 
round ;  whether  it  is  the  centre  of  the  universe  or  on  its 
edge;  whether  there  has  been  one  creation  or  many; 
whether  the  jSToachian  deluge  covered  a  million  or  two 
hundred  million  square  miles ;  and  last  of  all  I  may  add, 
whether  the  species  of  organic  beings  now  on  the  earth 
were  created  mediately  or  immediately  ? 

"After  these  preliminary  observations,  I  proceed  to  dis- 
cuss the  main  subject  of  this  address.  Before  answering 
the  question,  what  do  you  think  of  evolution  ?  I  must  ask, 
what  do  you  mean  by  evolution  ?■ 

"When  thinking  of  the  origin  of  anything,  we  may  in- 
quire, did  it  come  into  existence  just  as  it  is  ?  or  did  it 
pass  through  a  series  of  changes  from  a  previous  state  in 
order  to  reach  its  present  condition  ?  For  example,  if  we- 
think  of  a  tree,  we  can  conceive  of  it  as  having  come  im- 
mediately into  existence  just  as  we  see  it;  or  we  may 
conceive  of  it  as  having  begun  its  existence  as  a  minute 
cell  in  connection  with  a  similar  tree,  and  as  having 
reached  its  present  condition  by  passing  through  a  series 
of  changes,  continually  approaching  and  at  length  reach- 
ing the  form  before  us.  Or,  thinking  of  the  earth,  we  can 
conceive  of  it  as  having  come  into  existence  with  its  pres- 
ent complex  character ;  or  we  may  conceive  of  it  as  having 
begun  to  exist  in  the  simplest  possible  state,  and  as  having 
reached  its  present  condition  by  passing  through  a  long 
series  of  stages,  each  derived  from  its  predecessor.  To- 
the  second  of  these  modes,  we  apply  the  term  evolution. 
It  is  evidently  equivalent  to  derivation ;  or  in  the  case  of 
organic  beings,  to  descent. 


43G  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

"This  definition  or  description  of  evolution  does  not  in- 
clude any  reference  to  the  power  by  which  the  origination 
is  effected ;  it  refers  to  the  mode,  and  to  the  mode  alone. 
So  far  as  the  definition  is  concerned,  the  immediate  exist- 
ence might  be  attributed  to  God  or  to  chance ;  the  derived 
existence  to  inherent  uncreated  law,  or  to  an  almighty 
personal  Creator,  acting  according  to  laws  of  his  own 
framing.  It  is  important  to  consider  this  distinction 
carefully,  for  it  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  much  that  is 
said  and  believed  by  both  advocates  and  opponents  of  evo- 
lution. It  is  not  unusual  to  represent  creation  and  evolu- 
tion as  mutually  exclusive,  as  contradictory:  creation, 
meaning  the  immediate  calling  out  of  non-existence  by 
divine  power ;  evolution,  derivation  from  previous  forms 
or  states  by  inherent,  self-originated  or  eternal  laws,  in- 
dependent of  all  connection  with  divine  personal  power. 
Ilence,  if  this  is  correct,  those  Avho  believe  in  creation  are 
theists  ;  those  who  believe  in  evolution  are  atheists.  But 
there  is  no  propriety  in  thus  mingling  in  the  definition 
two  things  which  are  so  completely  different  as  the  power 
that  produces  an  effect,  and  the  mode  in  which  the  effect 
is  produced. 

"The  definition  now  given,  which  seems  to  me  the  only 
one  which  can  be  given  within  the  limits  of  natural 
science,  necessarily  excludes  the  possibility  of  the  ques- 
tions whether  the  doctrine  is  theistic  or  atheistic,  whether 
it  is  religious  or  irreligious,  moral  or  immoral.  It  would 
be  as  plainly  absurd  to  ask  these  questions  as  to  inquire 
whether  the  doctrine  is  white  or  black,  square  or  round, 
light  or  heavy.  In  this  respect  it  is  like  every  other 
hypothesis  or  theory  in  science.  These  are  qualities  which 
do  not  belong  to  such  subjects.  The  only  question  that 
can  rationally  be  put  is.  Is  the  doctrine  true  or  false  ?  If 
this  statement  is  correct — and  it  is  almost  if  not  quite  self- 
evident — it  should  at  once  end  all  disputes,  not  only  be- 
tween evolution  and  religion,  but  between  natural  science 
and  religion  universally.  To  prove  that  the  universe,  the 
earth,  and  the  organic  beings  upon  the  earth  had  once 
been  in  a  different  condition  from  the  present,  and  had 
gradually  reached  the  state  which  we  now  see,  could  not 
•disprove  or  tend  to  disprove  the  existence  of  God  or  the 


CONTROVERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  437 

possession  by  him  of  a  single  attribute  ever  thought  to  be- 
long to  him.  How  can  our  belief  in  this  doctrine  tend  to 
weaken  or  destroy  our  belief  that  he  is  infinite,  that  he  is 
eternal,  that  he  is  unchangeable  in  his  being,  or  his  wis- 
dom, or  his  power,  or  his  holiness,  or  his  justice,  or  his 
goodness,  or  his  truth  ?  Or  how  can  our  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  either  strengthen  or  weaken  our  belief  in  him  'i 
Or  how  can  either  our  acceptance  or  rejection  of  evolu- 
tion affect  our  love  to  God,  or  our  recognition  of  our  obli- 
gation to  obey  and  serve  him — carefully  to  keep  all  his 
commandments  and  ordinances  ? 

''True,  when  we  go  outside  the  sphere  of  natural 
science  and  inquire  whence  this  universe,  questions  in- 
volving theism  forthwith  arise.  Whether  it  came  into 
existence  immediately  or  mediately  is  not  material;  but 
what  or  who  brought  it  into  existence  ?  Did  it  spring  from 
the  fortuitous  concurrence  of  eternally  existing  atoms? 
Are  the  matter  and  the  forces  which  act  upon  it  in  certain 
definite  ways  eternal ;  and  is  the  universe,  as  we  behold 
it,  the  result  of  their  blind,  unconscious  operation  ?  Or, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  the  universe  in  all  its  orderly  com- 
plexity brought  into  existence  by  the  will  of  an  eternal 
personal  spiritual  God,  one  who  is  omniscient,  omni- 
present, omnipotent  ?  These  questions,  of  course,  involve 
the  very  foundations  of  religion  and  morality ;  but  they 
lie  wholly  outside  of  natural  science;  and  are,  I  repeat, 
not  in  the  least  affected  by  the  decision  of  that  other  ques- 
tion, did  the  universe  come  into  its  present  condition  im- 
mediately or  mediately ;  instantly,  in  a  moment,  or  grad- 
ually, through  a  long  series  of  intermediate  stages  ?  They 
are  not  affected  by,  nor  do  they  affect,  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  evolution. 

"But,  admitting  that  the  truth  of  theism  is  not  involved 
in  the  question  before  us,  it  may  fairly  be  asked,  does  not 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  contradict  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  ?  This  renders  it  necessary  to  inquire  whether  the 
Bible  teaches  anything  whatever  as  to  the  mode  in  which 
the  world  and  its  inhabitants  were  brought  into  their 
present  state ;   and  if  so,  what  that  teaching  is. 

"It  does  not  seem  to  be  antecedently  probable  that  there 
would  be  any  specific  teaching  there  on  the  subject.     We 


438  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

■have  learned  that  'the  scriptures  principally  teach  what 
man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  dnty  God  re- 
quires of  man' ;  and  that  'the  whole  counsel  of  God  con- 
cerning all  things  necessary  for  his  ovra  glory,  man's  sal- 
vation, faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  scrip- 
ture, or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  de- 
duced from  scripture.'  But  this  does  not  include  the 
principles  of  natural  science  in  any  of  its  branches.  We 
have  already  seen  that  it  certainly  does  not  include  the 
teaching  of  astronomy  or  of  geography;  it  does  not  in- 
clude anatomy  or  physiology,  zoology  or  botany — a  scien- 
tilic  statement  of  the  structure,  growth,  and  classification 
of  animals  and  plants.  Is  it  any  more  likely  that  it  in- 
cludes an  account  of  the  limits  of  the  variation  which  the 
kinds  of  plants  and  animals  may  undergo,  or  the  circum- 
stances and  conditions  by  which  such  variation  may  be 
affected  ?  We  would  indeed  expect  to  find  God's  relation 
to  the  world  and  all  its  inhabitants  set  forth ;  but  he  is 
equally  the  Creator  and  Preserver,  however  it  may  have 
pleased  him,  through  his  creating  and  preserving  power, 
to  have  brought  the  universe  into  its  present  state.  He  is 
as  really  and  truly  your  Creator,  though  you  are  the  de- 
scendant of  hundreds  of  ancestors,  as  he  was  of  the  first 
particle  of  matter  which  he  called  into  being,  or  the  first 
plant  or  animal,  or  the  first  angel  in  heaven. 

"So  much  at  least  seems  clear — that  whatever  the  Bible 
may  say  touching  the  mode  of  creation,  is  merely  inciden- 
tal to  its  main  design,  and  must  be  interpreted  accord- 
ingly. Well  may  we  repeat  with  Calvin,  'He  who  would 
learn  astronomy  and  other  recondite  arts,  let  him  go  else- 
where.' 

"It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  whatever  may  be 
taught  is  contained  in  the  first  part  of  the  oldest  book  in 
the  world,  in  a  dead  language,  with  a  very  limited  litera- 
ture ;  that  the  record  is  extremely  brief,  compressing  an 
account  of  the  most  stupendous  events  into  the  smallest 
compass,  ^ow  the  more  remote  from  the  present  is  any 
event  recorded  in  human  language,  the  more  completely 
any  language  deserves  to  be  called  dead,  the  more  limited 
its  contemporaneous  literature,  the  briefer  the  record  it- 
self, the  more  obscure  must  that  record  be — the  more  dif- 


CONTEOVEKSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  439 

ficult  it  must  be  to  ascertain  its  exact  meaning,  and  espe- 
cially that  part  of  its  meaning  which  is  merely  incidental 
to  its  main  design.  As  to  the  portions  which  bear  on  that 
design,  the  obscurity  w^ill  be  illuminated  by  the  light  cast 
backw^ards  from  the  later  and  fuller  and  clearer  parts  of 
the  Bible.  But  on  that  with  which  we  are  now  specially 
concerned  no  such  light  is  likely  to  fall. 

''To  illustrate  this  point  I  may  refer  to  other  parts  of 
this  early  record.  In  the  account  of  the  temptation  of 
Eve  we  have  a  circumstantial  and  apparently  very  plain 
description  of  the  being  that  tempted  her.  It  was  a  ser- 
pent ;  and  we  read  that  the  serpent  was  more  subtile  than 
any  beast  of  the  field.  Further,  it  was  a  beast  which  was 
to  go  upon  its  belly,  and  whose  head  could  be  bruised. 
Surely,  it  might  be  said,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  the 
record  should  cause  us  to  believe  that  it  was  a  mere  beast 
of  the  field,  a  mere  serpent,  that  tempted  Eve.  But  to 
narrate  the  fall  of  man  is  not  simply  incidental  to  the  de- 
sign of  the  Bible ;  on  the  contrary,  its  chief  design  may 
be  said  to  be  to  record  that  fall  and  to  show  how  man  may 
recover  from  it.  Hence  from  the  later  parts  of  the  Bible 
we  learn  that  the  tempter  was  no  beast  of  the  field,  as 
•seems  to  be  so  clearly  stated ;  but  it  was  'the  dragon,  that 
old  serpent,  which  is  the  devil,  even  Satan,'  whatever  may 
have  been  the  guise  in  which  he  appeared  to  our  first 
mother. 

"Then  from  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  the  serpent, 
'I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  be- 
tween thy  seed  and  her  seed ;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head, 
and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel' ;  from  this  it  would  seem  to 
be  clear  that  what  we  are  here  taught,  and  all  that  we  are 
here  taught,  is  that  the  woman's  son  was  to  crush  the  head 
of  the  beast,  whilst  his  own  heel  would  be  bruised ; 
w^hereas  we  learn  from  books  which  come  after,  that  this 
sentence  really  contains  the  germ  of  the  entire  plan  of 
salvation ;  and  that  the  woman's  son  who  was  to  bruise 
the  serpent's  head  at  such  cost  to  himself  is  Jesus  the 
Saviour,  who  on  Calvary  through  his  death  destroyed 
'him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil.'  ISTow 
since  in  these  cases,  where  the  meaning  seems  to  be  so  un- 
mistakably clear,  and  where  the  subject  matter  belongs  to 


440  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  main  design  of  the  book,  and  yet  where  the  real  mean- 
ing is  so  entirely  different,  as  we  learn  from  the  later 
scriptures,  how  cautious  we  should  be  not  to  feel  too  con- 
fident that  we  have  certainly  reached  the  true  meaning  in 
cases  where  the  subject  matter  is  merely  incidental,  and 
where  no  light  falls  back  from  the  later  scriptures  to  guide 
us  aright ! 

"The  actual  examination  of  the  sacred  record  seems  to 
me  to  show  that  the  obscurity  exists  which  might  have 
been  reasonably  anticipated.  It  is  clear  that  God  is  there 
represented  as  doing  whatever  is  done.  But  whether  in 
this  record  the  limitless  universe  to  the  remotest  star  or 
nebula  is  spoken  of,  or  only  some  portion  of  it,  and  if  the 
latter,  what  portion,  I  cannot  tell.  And  if  there  is  an  ac- 
count of  the  methods  according  to  which  God  proceeded  in 
his  creative  work,  I  cannot  perceive  it.  It  is  said  that 
God  created ;  but,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  it  is  not  said  how 
he  created.  We  are  told  nothing  that  contradicts  the  sup- 
position, for  example,  that  in  creating  our  earth  and  the 
solar  system  of  which  it  forms  a  part,  he  brought  the 
whole  into  existence  very  much  in  the  condition  in  which 
we  now  see  the  several  parts ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
he  proceeded  by  the  steps  indicated  in  what  is  called  the 
nebular  hypothesis.  Just  as  the  contrary  beliefs  of  Cal- 
vin and  ourselves  touching  the  centre  of  the  solar  system 
fail  to  contradict  a  single  word  in  the  Bible,  so  the  con- 
trary beliefs  of  those  who  accept  and  those  who  reject  the 
nebular  hvpothesis  fail  to  contradict  a  single  word  of  the 
Bible. 

"I  regard  the  same  statements  as  true  when  made  re- 
specting the  origin  of  the  almost  numberless  species  of 
organic  beings  which  noM'^  exist  and  which  have  existed  in 
the  past.  In  the  Bible  I  find  nothing  that  contradicts  the 
belief  that  God  immediately  brought  into  existence  each 
form  independently ;  or  that  contradicts  the  contrary  be- 
lief that,  having  originated  one  or  a  few  forms,  he  caused 
all  the  others  to  spring  from  these  in  accordance  with 
laws  which  he  ordained  and  makes  operative. 

"If  that  which  is  perhaps  the  most  commonly  received 
interpretation  of  the  biblical  record  of  creation  is  correct, 
then  it  is  certain  that  the  Bible  implicitly  yet  distinctly 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  441 

teaches  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  According  to  this  in- 
terpretation, the  record  contains  an  account  of  the  first 
and  only  origination  of  plants  and  animals,  and  all  that 
exist  now  or  that  have  existed  from  the  beginning  are 
their  descendants.  If,  then,  we  have  the  means  of  ascer- 
taining the  characteristics  of  these  ancestors  of  existing 
kinds,"  we  can  learn  whether  they  were  identical  with 
their  descendants  or  not.  If  the  early  forms  were  the 
same  as  the  present,  then  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  or 
descent  with  modification  is  not  true ;  but  if  they  were 
different,  then  it  is  true.  Xow  not  indeed  the  very  ear- 
liest, but  great  numbers  of  the  earlier  forms  of  animals 
and  plants  have  been  preserved  to  the  present  day  buried 
in  the  earth,  so  that  we  can  see  for  ourselves  what  they 
were.  An  examination  of  these  remains  makes  it  abso- 
lutely certain  that  none  of  the  species  now  existing  are  the 
same  as  the  earlier,  but  that  these  were  wholly  unlike 
those  now  living;  and  that  there  have  been  constant 
changes  in  progress  from  the  remote  ages  of  the  past,  the 
effect  of  which  has  been  by  degrees  to  bring  the  unlike 
forms  of  a  distant  antiquity  into  likeness  with  those  which 
are  now  on  the  earth.  Hence,  all  who  believe  that  the 
creation  described  in  the  Bible  was  the  origination  of  the 
ancestors  of  the  organic  forms  that  have  since  existed,  can- 
not help  believing  in  the  hypothesis  of  evolution.  This  is 
so  obvious  that  it  is  surprising  that  it  has  been  so  generally 
overlooked. 

"There  seems  to  be  no  way  of  avoiding  this  conclusion, 
except  by  assuming  that  the  so-called  remains  of  animals 
and  plants  buried  in  the  earth  are  not  really  remains  of 
being  that  were  once  alive,  but  that  God  created  them  just 
as  we  find  them.  But  this  assumption  must  be  rejected 
because  it  is  inconsistent  with  a  belief  in  God  as  a  God  of 
truth.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  a  God  of  truth 
would  create  corpses  or  skeletons  or  drift-wood  or  stumps. 

''If  the  interpretation  which  I  have  spoken  of  as  per- 
haps most  commonly  received  is  rejected,  then  it  may  be 
thought  that  the  Bible  speaks  only  of  the  first  origination 
of  oi'S'anic  being's  millions  of  vears  asi-o,  but  savs  nothino; 
of  the  origin  of  the  ancestors  of  those  now  on  the  earth ; 
but  that  it  may  be  supposed  that  when  one  creation  be- 


442  ISIY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

came  extinct,  there  were  other  successive  immediate  in- 
dependent creations  down  to  the  beginning;  of  the  present 
era.  There  may  bo  nothing  in  the  Bible  contradicting 
this  supposition,  but  certainly  there  is  nothing  there  fa- 
voring it.  And  if  it  is  rejected  in  favor  of  evolution,  it  is 
not  an  interpretation  of  scripture  that  is  rejected,  but 
something  that  confessedly  lies  outside  of  it. 

"Or,  in  the  next  place,  the  interpretation  may  be 
adopted  that  the  narrative  in  the  Bible  relates  exclusively 
to  the  origination  of  existing  forms,  and  that  it  is  wholly 
silent  respecting  those  of  which  we  find  the  buried  re- 
mains. It  need  hardly  be  said  that  on  this  interpretation, 
as  in  the  last  case,  there  is  nothing  in  the  silence  of  the 
scriptures  that  either  suggests  or  forbids  belief  in  evolu- 
tion as  regards  all  the  creations  preceding  the  last.  For 
anything  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  the  multitudes  of 
successively  different  forms  belonging  to  series  unmen- 
tioned  in  scripture  may  have  sprung  from  a  common 
source  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  descent  with 
modification. 

"When  we  reach  the  account  of  the  origin  of  man,  we 
find  it  more  detailed.  In  the  first  narrative  there  is  noth- 
ing that  suggests  the  mode  of  creating  any  more  than  in 
the  case  of  the  earth,  or  the  plants  and  animals.  But  in 
the  second  we  are  told  that  'the  Lord  God  formed  man  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul.'  Here 
seems  to  be  a  definite  statement  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  belief  that  man,  either  in  body  or  soul,  is  the  descend- 
ant of  other  organized  beings.  At  first  sight  the  state- 
ment that  'man  was  formed  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,' 
■seems  to  point  out  with  unmistakable  clearness  the  exact 
nature  of  the  material  of  which  man's  body  was  made. 
But  further  examination  does  not  strengthen  this  view. 
For  remembering  the  principles  and  facts  already  stated, 
and  seeking  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  'dust  of  the 
ground'  by  examining  how  the  same  words  are  employed 
elsewhere  in  the  narrative,  the  sharp  definiteness  which 
seemed  at  first  to  be  so  plainly  visible  somewhat  disap- 
]"»oars.  For  example,  we  are  told  in  one  place  that  the 
waters  were  commanded  to  bring  forth  the  moving  crea- 


CONTKOVEKSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  443 

ture  that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly  above  the  earth ; 
and  the  command  was  obeyed.  And  yet  in  another  place 
w^e  are  told  that  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed 
€very  beast  of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the  air.  TTow 
as  both  these  statements  are  triie,  it  is  evident  that  there 
<?an  be  no  intention  to  describe  the  material  employed. 
There  was  some  sort  of  connection  with  the  water,  and 
some  with  the  ground ;  but  beyond  this  nothing  is  clear. 
Then,  further,  in  the  sentence  which  God  pronounced 
upon  Adam,  he  says,  'Out  of  the  ground  wast  thou  taken  ; 
for  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.'  And 
in  the  curse  uttered  against  the  serpent  it  was  said,  'Dust 
shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of  thy  life.'  Kow  Adam,  to 
whom  God  was  speaking,  was  flesh  and  blood  and  bone; 
and  the  food  of  serpents  then  as  now  consisted  of  the  same 
substances,  flesh  and  blood.  The  only  proper  conclusion 
in  view  of  these  facts  seems  to  be  that  the  narrative  does 
not  intend  to  distingiiish  in  accordance  with  chemical 
notions  different  kinds  of  matter,  specifying  here  inor- 
ganic in  different  states,  and  there  organic,  but  merely  to 
refer  in  a  general  incidental  way  to  previously  existing 
matter,  without  intending  or  attempting  to  describe  its 
exact  nature.  For  such  reasons  it  does  not  seem  to  me 
certain  that  we  have  a  definite  statement  which  neces- 
sarilv  convevs  the  first  meanina;  mentioned  touchinsr  the 
material  used  in  the  formation  of  man's  body.  If  this 
point  is  doubtful,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  ground  for 
attributing  a  dift'erent  origin  to  man's  body  from  that 
which  should  be  attributed  to  animals ;  if  the  existing 
animal  species  were  immediately  created,  so  was  man ;  if 
they  w^ere  derived  from  ancestors  unlike  themselves,  so 
may  man  have  been.  Just  so  far  as  doubt  rests  on  the 
meaning  of  the  narrative,  just  so  far  are  we  forbidden  to 
say  that  either  mode  of  creation  contradicts  the  narrative. 
And  as  the  interpretation  suggested  may  be  true,  we  are 
not  at  liberty  to  say  that  the  scriptures  are  contradicted. 
"As  regards  the  soul  of  man,  which  bears  God's  image, 
and  which  differs  so  entirely  not  merely  in  degree,  but  in 
kind  from  anything  in  the  animals,  I  believe  that  it  was 
immediately  created,  that  we  are  here  so  taught ;  and  I 
have  not  found  in  science  any  reason  to  believe  otherwise. 


444  MY  LIFE  a:nd  times. 

Just  as  there  is  no  scientific  basis  for  the  belief  that  the 
doctrine  of  derivation  or  descent  can  bridge  over  the 
cliasnis  which  separate  the  non-existent  from  the  existent, 
and  the  inorganic  from  the  organic,  so  there  is  no  such 
basis  for  the  belief  that  this  doctrine  can  bridge  over  the 
chasm  which  separates  the  mere  animal  from  the  exalted 
being  which  is  made  after  the  image  of  God.  The  min- 
eral differs  from  the  animal  in  kind,  not  merely  in  de- 
gree ;  so  the  animal  differs  from  man  in  kind ;  and  while 
science  has  traced  numberless  transitions  from  degree  to 
degree,  it  has  utterly  failed  to  find  any  indications  of 
transition  from  kind  to  kind  in  this  sense.  So  in  the  cir- 
cumstantial account  of  the  creation  of  the  first  woman 
there  are  what  seem  to  me  insurmountable  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  fully  appl^dng  the  doctrine  of  descent. 

'"But  it  is  not  surprising  that,  even  if  evolution  is  gen- 
erally true,  it  should  not  be  true  of  man  in  his  whole  be- 
ing. Man,  as  the  image  of  God,  is  infinitely  above  the 
animals ;  and  in  man's  entire  history  God  has  continually 
been  setting  aside  the  ordinary  operation  of  the  laws  by 
which  he  controls  his  creation.  For  man's  sake,  the 
course  of  the  sun  in  the  heavens  was  stayed ;  the  walls  of 
Jericho  fell  down  at  the  sound  of  the  trumpets ;  manna 
ordinarily  decayed  in  one  day,  but  resisted  decay  for  two 
days  when  one  of  these  was  the  day  of  man's  sacred  rest ; 
for  man's  sake  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  and  of  the  river 
Jordan  stood  upright  as  an  heap  ;  iron  was  made  to  swim  ; 
wouK^n  rfceived  their  dead  raised  to  life  again ;  the 
mouths  of  lions  were  stopped  ;  the  violence  of  fire  was 
quenched ;  water  was  turned  into  wine ;  without  medi- 
cine the  blind  saw,  the  lame  walked,  the  lepers  were 
cleansed,  the  dead  were  raised ;  more  than  all,  and  above 
all,  for  man's  sake  God  himself  took  on  him  our  nature  as 
the  second  Adam  by  being  born  of  a  woman,  underwent 
the  miseries  of  this  life,  the  cursed  death  of  the  cross; 
was  buried;  he  rose  again  on  the  third  day,  ascended 
into  heaven,  whence,  as  both  God  and  man,  he  shall  come 
to  judge  the  world  at  the  last  day.  Surely  then,  I  repeat, 
it  is  not  surprising  that,  though  man  in  his  body  so  closely 
resembles  the  animals,  yet  as  a  whole  his  origin  as  well 
as  his  history  should  be  so  different  from  theirs. 


COXTROVEKSIES    OF    SCIEXCE.  445 

"Having  now  pointed  ont  the  probable  absence  of  con- 
tradiction between  the  scripture  account  of  creation  and 
the  doctrine  of  evohition,  except  in  the  case  of  man  so  far 
as  regards  his  soul,  but  without  having  at  all  considered 
the  p'robable  truth  or  falsehood  of  evolution,  I  proceed 
next,  as  briefly  as  possible,  to  state  a  few  of  the  facts  which 
seem  to  be  sufficient  at  least  to  keep  us  from  summarily 
rejecting  the  doctrine  as  certainly  false. 

"First,  as  to  the  earth  in  connection  with  the  other 
members  of  our  solar  system. 

"Some  inquirers  into  the  past  history  of  this  system 
have  been  led  to  suppose  that  at  one  time  the  whole  of  the 
matter  now  composing  the  various  separate  bodies  may 
have  existed  in  a  nebulous  state,  forming  a  vast  sphere 
with  a  diameter  far  exceeding  that  of  the  orbit  of  Xep- 
tune.  the  outermost  planet ;  that  this  sphere  rotated  about 
its  axis,  and  that  it  was  undergoing  gradual  contraction. 
If  there  ever  was  such  a  sphere,  it  is  claimed  by  some  of 
those  who  have  most  carefully  studied  these  subjects  that, 
in  accordance  with  the  laws  by  which  God  is  now  govern- 
ing his  material  works,  just  such  a  solar  system  as  ours 
would  necessarily  have  resulted.  As  the  sphere  con- 
tracted, the  nebulous  matter  would  become  more  dense, 
and  the  rate  of  rotation  would  increase  and  would  thereby 
increase  the  centrifugal  force,  so  that  at  length  a  belt  or 
ring  would  be  throv^i  oif  from  the  equatorial  region  of  the 
sphere ;  which  belt  might  continue  to  rotate  as  an  un- 
broken mass,  or  if  broken,  would  be  collected  by  the  laws 
of  attraction  into  a  spheroidal  body,  which  would  rotate 
upon  its  own  axis,  and  would  also  continue  to  revolve  in 
a  path  around  the  axis  of  the  whole  mass,  both  these  rev- 
olutions being  in  the  same  direction,  the  axis  of  the  new 
spheroid  being  not  far  from  parallel  with  the  general  axis, 
and  the  orbit  of  revolution  being  not  far  from  parallel 
with  the  plane  of  tlie  general  equator.  This  process  would 
be  repeated  from  time  to  time,  new  belts  or  spheroids  with 
the  same  characteristics  being  successively  formed.  So 
from  each  of  these  spheroids,  as  it  continued  to  contract, 
similar  secondary  spheroids  might  be  successively  formed, 
each  assuming  a  shape  determined  by  the  rate  of  rotation. 
At  a  certain  stage  in  the  cooling  the  nebulous  matter 


446  MY  LIFE  AST)  TIMES. 

"u-onld  become  a  liquid  molten  mass,  iiltimateh'  solid.  As 
the  solid  spheroid  cooled  still  more  it  would  still  continue 
to  contract,  but  unequally  in  the  interior  and  on  the  ex- 
terior, and  thus  the  surface  -would  be  covered  with  suc- 
cessively formed  wrinkles  or  ridges. 

"jSTow  in  every  particular,  with  very  slight  exception, 
the  constitution  of  our  solar  system  and  our  earth  i& 
exactly  such  as  has  just  been  described.  It  consists  of  a 
number  of  spheroids,  each  rotating  on  its  own  axis,  and 
revolving  around  a  central  mass ;  and  around  the  several 
primary  spheroids  are  others  which  rotate  on  their  axes, 
and  revolve  aromid  their  primaries  as  these  do  around 
the  sun,  all  having  a  form  determined  by  the  rate  of  rota- 
tion; the  primaries  or  planets  all  rotate  on  axes  nearly 
parallel  with  the  axis  of  the  sun ;  the  planes  of  their 
orbits  of  revolution  nearly  coincide  with  the  equatorial 
plane  of  the  sun ;  these  revolutions  and  rotations  are  all 
in  the  same  direction ;  in  the  case  of  Saturn,  in  addition 
to  revolving  satellites,  are  revolving  belts  or  rings.  Com- 
ing to  our  earth,  it  exhibits  the  plainest  marks  of  having 
once  been  in  a  molten  state ;  the  great  mountain  chains, 
which  certainly  have  been  formed  during  successive 
periods,  are  just  such  as  w^ould  be  formed  by  the  wrink- 
ling of  the  earth's  crust  caused  by  unequal  contraction. 
Hence  it  would  seem  not  unreasonable  to  conclude  that 
if  the  nebular  hj^jjothesis  has  not  been  proved  to  be  cer- 
tainly true,  it  has  at  least  been  shown  to  be  probable.  The 
number  and  variety  of  coincidences  between  the  facts 
Avhich  we  see,  and  the  necessary  results  of  the  supposition 
on  which  the  nebular  hypothesis  is  founded  are  so  very 
great,  that  it  must  go  far  to  produce  the  conviction  that 
that  supposition  can  hardly  be  wrong.  As  before  inti- 
mated, the  correspondence  is  not  perfect,  but  the  excep- 
tions are  not  such  as  to  disprove  the  hyj^othesis ;  they  are 
merely  the  residual  phenomena,  which  in  the  case  of  even 
the  most  firmly  established  principles  await  a  full  explan- 
ation. 

"If  it  should  be  objected  that  as  this  scheme  rests  on  a 
mere  supposition  no  part  of  the  superstructure  can  be 
stronger  than  the  foundation,  and  that  therefore  it  must 
be  supposition  and  nothing  more  throughout,  I  would  say 


COXTEOVEESIES    OF   SCIE^STCE.  447 

tliat  this  objection  rests  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  na- 
ture of  reasoning  on  such  subjects.  Let  us  examine,  by 
wav  of  ilhistration,  the  method  by  which  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  of  gravitation  Avas  established.  At  first  it  was 
the  gravitation  hypothesis  merely.  Newton  formed  the 
supposition  that  the  heavenly  bodies  are  draAAOi  towards 
each  other  by  the  same  force  which  draws  bodies  towards 
each  other  on  the  earth.  He  calculated  what  the  motions 
of  the  moon  and  the  plants  should  be  if  this  supposition  is 
correct.  After  many  efforts  he  found  that  many  of  these 
motions  were  nearly  what  his  supposition  would  require. 
Even  the  first  observed  coincidence  was  a  step  towards 
proving  the  truth  of  his  hypothesis ;  and  as  these  coin- 
cidences multiplied,  his  conviction  of  its  truth  was  in- 
creased, until  at  length  he  and  all  who  took  the  trouble  to 
become  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  the  case  believed  with 
the  utmost  confidence  that  it  was  absolutely  true.  But 
even  when  this  conviction  was  reached,  there  were  still 
many  phenomena  which  jSTewton  could  not  explain  on  his 
hypothesis  ;  but  these  residual  phenomena,  formidable  as 
they  were,  did  not  shake  his  confidence,  and  should  not 
have  done  so.  'Now  if  jS^ewton's  gravitation  hypothesis 
was  entitled  to  his  confidence  on  account  of  the  number 
and  variety  of  coincidences,  notwithstanding  the  appa- 
rently inconsistent  facts,  ought  not  the  nebular  hypothesis 
to  be  entitled  to  similar  confidence,  provided  there  should 
be  similar  coincidences  in  number  and  variety,  even 
though  there  remain  some  apparently  inconsistent  facts  ? 
And  as  the  gravitation  hypothesis  rests  upon  a  mere  sup- 
position in  the  same  sense  with  the  nebular  hypothesis, 
ought  the  superstructure  for  that  reason  to  be  rejected  in 
tlie  one  case  any  more  than  in  the  other  ? 

''It  deserves  to  be  remarked  here  that  after  N"ewton  had 
framed  his  hypothesis  he  was  led  for  years  to  abandon  it^ 
inasmuch  as  with  the  measurements  of  the  earth  on  the 
basis  of  which  he  made  his  first  calculations  the  mo- 
tions of  the  heavenly  bodies  were  utterly  inconsistent 
with  it. 

"To  conclude,  then,  as  regards  the  earth,  I  would  say 
in  the  terms  of  one  definition  of  evolution,  terms  which 
have  furnished  to  witlings  so  much  amusement,  but  yet 


448  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

^vllicll  so  accurately  and  appropriately  express  the  idea 
intended,  that  I  think  it  very  probable  that  our  earth  and 
solar  system  constitute  one  case  in  which  the  homogeneous 
has  been  transformed  by  successive  difi'erentiations  into 
the  heterogeneous. 

"In  the  next  place,  respecting  the  origin  of  the  various 
kinds  of  animals  and  organized  forms  generally,  it  has 
been  supposed  by  some  naturalists  that  existing  forms,  in- 
stead of  having  been  independently  created,  have  all  been 
derived  by  descent,  with  modification,  from  a  few  forms 
or  a  single  one.  It  is  known  that  the  offspring  of  a  single 
pair  differ  slightly  from  each  other  and  from  their  par- 
ents ;  it  is  further  known  that  such  differences  or  varia- 
tions may  be  transmitted  to  subsequent  generations  ;  and 
it  is  self-evident  that  under  changing  conditions  the  va- 
rieties best  fitted  to  the  new  conditions  would  be  most 
likely  to  survive.  I^ow,  under  the  operation  of  these 
principles,  it  is  held  that  all  the  immense  variety  of  exist- 
ing forms  of  plants  and  animals  may  have  sprung  from 
one  or  a  few  initial  simple  types. 

''In  accordance  with  this  supposition,  the  earliest  in- 
habitants of  the  world  would  be  very  simple  forms. 
Among  the  varieties  produced  in  successive  generations 
some  would  be  more  complex  in  their  organization  than 
their  parents;  such  complexity  being  transmitted  would 
form  kinds  somewhat  higher  in  rank ;  these  in  turn 
would  give  rise  to  others  still  more  complex  and  higher ; 
until  at  length  at  the  present  day  the  most  complex  and 
highest  would  exist.  All  would  not  undergo  such  modi- 
fications as  to  produce  the  higher  forms ;  hence  there 
would  be  at  all  times,  along  with  the  highest,  every  inter- 
mediate stage,  though  the  existing  low  forms  would  differ 
in  many  particulars  from  their  ancestors,  unless  indeed 
the  conditions  under  which  they  lived  remained  un- 
changed. 

"Xow  in  the  statement  just  made  we  have  an  outline  of 
the  facts  made  known  to  us  by  an  examination  of  the  ani- 
mals and  plants  which  arc  buried  in  the  earth.  The  sedi- 
ment in  the  waters  all  over  the  world  sooner  or  later  sinks 
to  the  bottom  in  the  form  of  layers ;  this  sediment  con- 
tains remains  of  plants  and  animals  carried  down  with  it, 


CONTEOVEESIES    OF   SCIEXCE.  449 

:and  in  various  ways  permanently  preserves  them.     Of 
conrse  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  plants  and  animals 
could  be  thus  preserved;    still  a  few  would  be.     If  we 
could  gain  access  to  these  layers  and  examine  their  con- 
tents, we  would  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  successive  gen- 
erations of  the  past,  the  lowest  layer  being  the  oldest.     It 
happens  that  a  vast  number  of  such  layers  have  been  hard- 
ened into  rocks,  and  have  been  raised  from  the  waters 
where  they  were  formed,  and  so  broken  and  tilted  that  we 
have  ready  access  to  them.     ISTot  less  than  nine-tenths  of 
the  dry  land,  so  far  as  examined,  is  composed  of  sedimen- 
tary rocks ;   and  of  these  a  large  part  contain  the  remains 
of  plants  and  animals  which  were  living  at  the  time  the 
rocks  were  formed.     Of  course  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  a  complete  series  is  known  of  all  that  ever  were 
formed ;    still  enough  are  brought  to  view  to  lead  to  the 
I)elief  that  from  an  examination  of  their  contents  we  may 
obtain  a  fair  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  succession 
of  animals  and  plants  from  an  early  period  do\vn  to  the 
present.     We  cannot  go  back  to  the  beginning,  but  we 
can  go  a  long  way.     The  outline  thus  obtained  shows  us 
that  all  the  earlier  organic  beings  in  existence,  through  an 
immense  period,  as  proved  by  an  immense  thickness  of 
layers  resting  on  each  other,  were  of  lower  forms,  with  not 
one  as  high  or  of  as  complex  an  organization  as  the  fish. 
Then  the  fish  appeared,  and  remained  for  a  long  time  the 
highest  being  on  the  earth.     Then  folloAved  at  long  inter- 
vals the  amphibian,  or  frog-like  animal,  the  reptile,  the 
lowest  mammalian,  then  gradually  the  higher  and  higher, 
until  at  length  appeared  man,  the  head  and  crown  of  crea- 
tion.     The   plants   present   a   similar  history,    the   first 
known  being  simple  forms,  like  the  seaweed,  followed  as 
we  pass  upwards  through  the  later  layers  by  forms  of 
higher  and  higher  type,  until  we  reach  the  diversity  and 
complexity  of  existing  vegetation.     It  is  seen,  too,  that 
when  a  new  type  is  first  found,  it  does  not  present  the 
full  typical  characters   afterwards   observed,   but  along 
with  some  of  these  also  some  of  the  characters  belonging 
to  other  types.    The  earliest  reptiles,  for  example,  present 
many  of  the  characters  of  the  fish,  the  earliest  birds  and 
mammals  many  of  the  characters  of  the  reptile,  and  so 


450  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

throiiirliout  the  series.  It  is  true  there  are  many  gaps,  but 
not  more  than  might  be  expected  from  the  fact  that  the 
series  of  layers  containing  the  remains  is  incomplete. 
When  the  layers  show  that  the  circumstances  existing 
during  the  period  M'hile  they  were  forming  remained  un- 
changed, then  the  kinds  of  animals  underwent  little  or 
no  change;  but  if  the  layers  show  rajDid  changes  in  cli- 
mate, depth  of  water,  etc.,  then  the  species  of  animals 
changed  rapidly  and  frequently. 

''It  would  further  follow,  from  the  supposition  under 
consideration,  that  all  animals  being  related  to  each  other 
by  descent  they  must  resemble  each  other.  In  the  organic 
world  every  one  knows  that  likeness  suggests  relationship, 
and  that  relationship  usually  accompanies  likeness,  the 
nearer  the  relationship,  the  closer  generally  is  the  like- 
ness. Now  careful  observation  makes  known  to  us  that 
the  various  animals  are  surprisingly  like  each  other.  In' 
the  highest  class  of  vertebrate  animals,  and  also  in  man, 
for  example,  the  skeleton,  the  nervous  system,  the  diges- 
tive system,  the  circulatory  system,  are  all  constructed  on 
exactly  the  same  plan.  If  the  skull  of  a  man  is  compared 
with  the  skull  of  a  dog,  or  a  horse,  each  will  be  seen  to  be- 
composed  of  the  same  bones  similarly  situated.  Where 
the  number  differs,  the  difference  will  be  seen  to  result 
from  the  growing  together  of  several  bones  in  one  case 
which  were  separate  in  the  others.  So  the  hiunan  arm, 
the  leg  of  the  quadruped,  the  wing  of  the  bird,  the  paddle 
of  the  whale,  will  be  found  to  be  formed  on  exactly  the 
same  plan.  When  the  form  of  the  animal  is  such  as  to 
render  unnecessary  any  part  belonging  to  the  general 
plan,  it  is  not  omitted  at  once,  but  is  reduced  in  size  and 
so  placed  as  not  to  be  in  the  way,  and  then  in  other  similar 
animals  by  degrees  passes  beyond  recognition.  And  so  it 
is  with  every  part.  There  are  also  the  same  kinds  of  re- 
semblance between  the  lowest  animals ;  and,  further,  be- 
tween any  section  of  the  lower  animals  and  those  which 
are  just  above  or  just  below  them  in  rank.  Thus  we  may 
arrange  all  the  forms  in  the  entire  animal  kingdom  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest,  according  to  their  resemblances; 
and  while  the  highest  is  indeed  very  unlike  the  lowest,  a 
man  very  unlike  a  simple  cell,  yet  at  every  step  as  we  pass- 


CONTEOVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  451. 

tlirongii  the  entire  series  we  find  the  resemblances  vastly 
greater  than  the  difl^erences. 

"^'We  thus  have  another  set  of  facts  which  plainly  would 
follow  from  descent  with  modification. 

"The  existence  of  rudimentary  organs  is  still  another 
fact  which  would  follow  very  naturally  from  this  mode 
of  creation,  but  which  seems  not  very  likely  to  have 
occurred  if  each  species  was  independently  created.  For 
example,  though  a  cow  has  no  upper  front  teeth,  a  calf 
has  such  teeth  some  time  before  it  is  born.  The  adult 
whalebone  whale  has  no  teeth  at  all,  but  the  young  before 
birth  is  well  supplied  with  them.  In  the  blind  worm,  a 
snake-like  animal,  there  are  rudimentary  legs  which  never 
appear  externally.  In  the  leg  of  a  bird  the  bone  below  the 
thigh-bone,  instead  of  being  double  as  in  the  general  plan, 
has  the  shin-bone,  and  a  rudimentary  bone  welded  into  it 
representing  the  small  outer  bone,  but  not  fulfilling  any 
of  its  uses.  The  blind  fish  of  the  Mammoth  Cave  have 
optic  nerves  and  rudimentary  eyes.  So  in  the  leg  of  the 
horse,  of  the  ox,  and  indeed  in  many  parts  of  the  body  of 
every  kind  of  animal,  will  be  found  rudimentary  organs 
apparently  not  of  the  least  use  to  the  animal  itself,  but  of 
great  use  to  those  animals  which  they  closely  resemble. 
All  these  facts  are  just  such  as  the  doctrine  of  descent 
with  modification  would  lead  us  to  expect,  but  which 
seem  hard  to  understand  on  the  supposition  that  each  spe- 
cies was  independently  and  immediately  created. 

"Again,  the  changes  through  which  an  animal  passes  in 
its  embryonic  state  are  just  such  as  the  doctrine  of  descent 
requires.  All  animals  begin  life  in  the  lowest  form,  and 
all  in  substantially  the  same  form.  Each  at  first  is  a 
simple  cell.  Beginning  with  this  cell  in  the  case  of  the 
higher  animals,  we  find  that,  in  the  course  of  embryonic 
development,  at  successive  stages  the  general  forms  are- 
presented  which  characterize  the  several  groups  in  which 
animals  are  placed  when  classified  according  to  their  re- 
semblance to  each  other,  ascending  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest.  While  it  cannot  be  said  "that  the  human  embryO' 
is  at  one-period  an  invertebrate,  then  a  fish,  af terAvards  a 
reptile,  a  mammalian  quadruped,  and  at  last  a  human 
being,  yet  it  is  true  that  it  has  at  one  period  the  inverte-  * 


452  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

brate  structure,  then  successively,  in  a  greater  or  less 
number  of  particulars,  the  structure  of  the  fish,  the  rep- 
tile, and  the  mammalian  quadruped.  And  in  many  of 
these  particulars  the  likeness  is  strikingly  close. 

"The  last  correspondence  which  I  shall  point  out  bc- 
t^A'een  the  results  of  the  doctrine  of  descent  and  actual 
facts  is  that  which  is  presented  by  the  geographical  dis- 
tribution of  animals.  In  this  wide  field  I  must  confine 
myself  to  a  few  points. 

"By  examining  the  depths  of  the  channels  which  sep- 
arate islands  from  each  other  or  from  neighboring  conti- 
nents, the  relative  length  of  time  during  which  they  must 
have  been  without  land  communication  between  them  may 
be  approximately  ascertained.  Where  the  channel  is  shal- 
low, they  may  have  formed  parts  of  a  single  body  of  land 
recently ;  but  where  it  is  deep,  they  must  ordinarily  have 
been  separate  for  a  long  time.  For  example.  Great  Brit- 
ain is  separated  from  the  continent  of  Europe  by  a  very 
shallow  channel ;  Madagascar  is  cut  oif  from  Africa  by 
one  that  is  very  deep.  In  the  East  Indies,  Borneo  is  sep- 
arated from  Java  by  a  sea  not  three  hundred  feet  deep ; 
it  is  separated  from  Celebes,  which  is  much  nearer  than 
Java,  by  a  channel  more  than  five  thousand  feet  deep. 
Xow,  if  the  theory  of  descent  with  modification  is  true, 
it  should  be  expected  that  in  the  regions  recently  sep- 
arated the  animals  would  differ  but  slightly;  in  regions 
separated  long  ago,  the  animals  would  differ  more  widely ; 
and  that,  just  in  proportion  to  the  length  of  separation. 
This  is  exactly  what  we  find  in  the  regions  mentioned. 
The  animals  of  Great  Britain  differ  little  from  those  on 
the  adjacent  continent,  while  the  animals  of  Madagascar 
differ  greatly  from  those  of  the  neighboring  coast  of 
Africa.  There  are  few  kinds  fomid  in  Java  which  are 
not  also  found  in  Borneo,  while  on  the  other  hand  very 
few  kinds  are  found  in  Celebes  which  exist  in  Borneo. 
So  it  is  the  world  over. 

"And  this  is  not  all.  When  we  examine  the  kinds  of 
animals  which  have  recently  become  extinct  in  each  coun- 
try, we  find  that  they  correspond  exactly  with  those  which 
now  inhabit  that  country ;  they  are  exactly  such  as  should 
have  preceded  the  present  according  to  the  doctrine  of  de- 


CO^"TKOVEKSIES    OF   SCIENCE,  45S 

scent.  For  example,  lions,  tigers,  and  other  flesh-eating 
animals  of  the  highest  rank,  are  found  scattered  over  the 
great  Eastern  continent.  In  Australia  the  kangaroo  and 
other  pouched  animals  like  the  opossum  abound,  but  none 
of  any  higher  rank.  In  South  America  are  found  the 
sloth,  the  armadillo,  and  other  forms  which  we  meet  wath 
nowhere  else  on  the  earth.  ISTow,  in  the  Eastern  continent 
we  And  buried  in  caves  and  the  upper  layers  of  the  earth 
extinct  kinds  of  lions,  bears,  hyenas,  and  the  like,  which 
differ  from  existing  kinds,  but  yet  closely  resemble  them. 
But  we  find  nothing  like  the  kangaroo  or  other  pouched 
animals,  or  like  the  sloth  or  armadillo.  Whereas  if  we 
examine  the  extinct  buried  animals  in  Australia,  we  find 
they  are  all  pouched,  with  not  a  single  example  of  any- 
thing of  as  high  rank  as  the  lion  or  the  bear ;  and  if  we 
do  the  same  in  South  America,  we  see  extinct  kinds  of  ar- 
madillos and  sloths,  but  nothing  at  all  like  the  animals  of 
Asia  or  Australia.  It  is  equally  true  that  wdierever  re- 
gions of  the  world  are  separated  by  barriers  which  i^re- 
vent  the  passage  of  animals,  whether  these  barriers  are 
seas  or  mountain  ranges  or  climatic  zones,  the  groups  of 
animals  inhabiting  the  separated  regions  differ  more  or 
less  widely  from  each  other,  just  in  proportion  to  the 
length  of  time  during  which  the  barriers  have  existed.  If 
the  barrier  is  such  that  it  prevents  the  passage  of  one  kind 
of  animal  and  not  another,  then  the  groups  will  resemble 
each  other  in  the  animals  whose  passage  is  not  prevented, 
and  will  differ  in  the  rest.  All  this  is  independent  of 
climate,  and  other  conditions  of  life :  two  regions  may 
have  the  same  climate,  may  be  equally  favorable  to  the 
existence  of  a  certain  group  of  animals ;  but  if  these  re- 
gions are  separated  by  impassible  barriers,  the  groups 
differ  just  as  previously  stated. 

''In  view^  of  all  the  facts  now  presented,  the  way  in 
which  animals  have  succeeded  each  other,  beginning  as 
far  back  as  we  can  go,  and  coming  down  to  the  present ; 
the  series  of  resemblances  which  connect  them  from  the 
lowest  to  highest,  exhibiting  such  remarkable  unity  of 
plan  ;  ^  the  existence  of  rudimentary  organs ;  the  geo- 
graphical distribution  of  animals,  and  the  close  connec- 
tion of  that  distribution  now  and  in  the  past — in  view  of 


454  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

.^11  these  facts  the  doctrine  of  descent  with  modification, 
which  so  perfectly  accords  with  them  all,  cannot  be  lightly 
and  contemptnously  dismissed.  In  the  enmneration 
made  I  have  been  carefnl  to  state  none  but  well-ascer- 
tained facts,  which  any  one  who  wishes  to  take  the  time 
•can  easily  verify.  Are  not  the  coincidences  such  as  must 
almost  compel  belief  of  the  doctrine,  unless  it  can  be 
proved  to  be  contradictory  of  other  known  truth?  For 
my  part  I  cannot  but  so  regard  them  ;  and  the  more  fully 
I  become  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  which  I  have  given 
a  faint  outline,  the  more  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  it 
pleased  God,  the  almighty  Creator,  to  create  present  and 
intermediate  past  organic  forms  not  immediately,  but 
mediately,  in  accordance  with  the  general  plan  involved  in 
the  hypothesis  I  have  been  illustrating. 

^'Believing  as  I  do  that  the  scriptures  are  almost  cer- 
tainly silent  on  the  subject,  I  find  it  hard  to  see  how  any 
one  could  hesitate  to  prefer  the  hypothesis  of  mediate 
creation  to  the  hypothesis  of  immediate  creation.  The 
latter  has  nothing  to  offer  in  its  favor ;  we  have  seen  a 
little  of  what  the  former  may  claim. 

''I  cannot  take  time  to  discuss  at  length  objections 
which  have  been  urged  against  this  hypothesis,  but  may 
say  that  they  do  not  seem  to  me  of  great  weight.  It  is 
sometimes  said  that,  if  applied  to  man,  it  degrades  him  to 
regard  him  as  in  any  respect  the  descendant  of  the  beast. 
We  have  not  been  consulted  on  the  subject,  and  possibly 
our  desire  for  noble  origin  may  not  be  able  to  control  the 
matter ;  but,  however  that  may  be,  it  is  hard  to  see  how 
dirt  is  nobler  than  the  highest  organization  which  God 
up  to  that  time  created  on  the  earth.  And  further,  how- 
ever it  may  have  been  with  Adam,  we  are  perfectly  cer- 
tain that  each  one  of  us  has  passed  through  a  state  lower 
than  that  of  the  fish,  then  successively  through  states  not 
unlike  those  of  the  tadpole,  the  reptile,  and  the  quadruped. 
Hence,  whatever  nobility  may  have  been  conferred  on 
Adam  by  being  made  of  dust  has  been  lost  to  us  by  our 
jDassing  through  these  low  animal  stages. 

"It  has  been  objected  that  it  removes  God  to  such  a 
distance  from  us  that  it  tends  to  atheism.  But  the  doc- 
trine of  descent  certainly  applies  to  the  succession  of  men 


CONTKOVEKSIES   OF    SCIENCE.  455 

from  Adam  up  to  the  present.  Are  we  any  farther  from 
God  than  were  the  earlier  generations  of  the  antedilu- 
vians ?  Have  we  fewer  proofs  of  his  existence  and  power 
than  they  had  ?  It  must  be  plain  that  if  mankind  shall 
continue  to  exist  on  the  earth  so  long,  millions  of  years 
lience  the  proofs  of  God's  almighty  creative  power  will  be 
as  clear  as  they  are  to-day. 

''It  has  been  also  objected  that  this  doctrine  excludes 
the  idea  of  design  in  nature.  But  if  the  development  of 
an  oak  from  an  acorn  in  accordance  with  laws  which  God 
has  ordained  and  executes  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of 
design,  I  utterly  fail  to  see  how  the  development  of  our 
complex  world,  teeming  with  co-adaptations  of  the  most 
-striking  character,  can  possibly  exclude  that  idea. 

"I  have  now  presented  briefly,  but  as  fully  as  possible  in 
an  address  of  this  kind,  my  views  as  to  the  method  which 
should  be  adopted  in  considering  the  relations  between 
the  scriptures  and  natural  science,  showing  that  all  that 
should  be  expected  is  that  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  by 
interpretations  which  may  be  true  that  they  do  not  con- 
tradict each  other;  that  the  contents  and  aims  of  the 
scriptures  and  of  natural  science  are  so  diiferent  that  it 
is  unreasonable  to  look  for  agreement  or  harmony ;  that 
terms  are  not  and  ought  not  to  be  used  in  the  Bible  in  a 
scientific  sense,  and  that  they  are  used  perfectly  truth- 
fully Avhen  they  convey  the  sense  intended  ;  that  on  these 
principles  all  alleged  contradictions  of  natural  science 
by  the  Bible  disappear ;  that  a  proper  definition  of  evolu- 
tion excludes  all  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  forces  and 
laws  by  which  it  works,  and  therefore  that  it  does  not  and 
cannot  affect  belief  in  God  or  in  religion;  that,  accord- 
ing to  not  unreasonable  interpretations  of  the  Bible,  it 
does  not  contradict  anything  there  taught  so  far  as  re- 
gards the  earth,  the  lower  animals,  and  probably  man  as 
to  his  body;  that  there  are  many  good  grounds  for  be- 
lieving that  evolution  is  true  in  these  respects  ;  and  lastly, 
that  the  reasons  urged  against  it  are  of  little  or  no  weight. 
"I  would  say  in  conclusion  that  while  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  in  itself,  as  before  stated,  is  not  and  cannot  be 
either  Christian  or  anti-Christian,  religious  or  irreligious, 
theistic  or  atheistic,  yet  viewing  the  history  of  our  earth 


456  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

and  its  inhabitants,  and  of  the  whole  nniverse,  as  it  is  un- 
folded by  its  help,  and  then  going  outside  of  it  and  recog- 
nizing that  it  is  God's  plan  of  creation,  instead  of  being 
tempted  to  put  away  thoughts  of  him,  as  I  contemplate 
this  w'ondrous  series  of  events,  caused  and  controlled  by 
the  power  and  wisdom  of  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  I  am 
led  with  profounder  reverence  and  admiration  to  give 
glory  and  honor  to  him  that  sits  on  the  throne,  who  liveth 
for  ever  and  ever ;  and  with  fuller  heart  and  a  truer  ap- 
preciation of  what  it  is  to  create,  to  join  in  saying.  Thou 
are  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory  and  honor  and 
powder ;  for  thou  hast  created  all  things,  and  for  thy  pleas- 
ure they  are  and  were  created." 

Action  of  the  Board  of  Directors. 

This  address  of  the  Perkins  Professor,  delivered  to  the 
joint  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors  and  the  Alumni 
Association,  on  the  7th  of  May,  1884,  and  requested  by 
them  for  publication,  appeared  in  the  July  number  of 
the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  and  a  copy  of  it  put 
into  the  hands  of  each  one  of  the  board.  At  the  board's 
regular  meeting,  September  IGth  and  17th,  it  w^as  con- 
sidered. ISTo  doubt,  from  the  exceeding  great  interest 
which  the  subject  was  exciting,  this  publication  had  been 
thoroughly  read  by  them  all  beforehand.  They  expressed 
their  approbation  of  it  in  strong  terms,  and  by  a  three- 
fourths  vote.  A  minute  was  adopted  expressing  their 
thanks  for  the  ability  and  faithfulness  exhibited  therein, 
declaring  their  belief  that  he  had  plainly,  clearly,  and 
satisfactorily  set  forth  the  relations  subsisting  between 
the  teachings  of  scripture  and  those  of  natural  science ; 
averring  that,  while  not  prepared  to  accept  the  Professor's 
view^  of  the  probable  method  of  the  creation  of  Adam's 
body,  yet  in  their  judgment  there  is  nothing  in  evolution, 
as  defined  and  limited  by  him,  inconsistent  with  perfect 
soundness  in  the  faith ;  finally,  taking  occasion  to  record 
their  deej)  and  growing  conviction  of  the  wisdom  of  the 
synods  in  establishing  the  Perkins  Professorship,  through 
the  instructions  of  which  our  ministry  may  be  the  better 
prepared  to  resist  the  objections  of  infidel  scientists,  and 
defend  the  scriptures  against  their  insidious  charges. 


CONTROVEESIES    OF    SCIEIN'CE.  457 

The  affirmative  votes  which  passed  this  minute  were 
the  following :  A.  W.  Clisbv,  T.  H.  Law,  W.  J.  McKay, 
W.  A.  Clark,  T.  B.  Fraser,  C.  A.  Stillman,  J.  W.  Laps- 
lev,  A.  B.  Curry.  The  negative  votes  were  James  Stacy, 
J.  B.  Mack,  George  W.  Scott.  The  secretary  was  in- 
strncted  to  send  a  copy  of  this  paper  to  Dr.  Woodrow. 

The  minority  offered  the  following  protest,  which  was 
admitted  to  record : 

We  protest  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  Evolution  is  an  unproved  hypothesis. 

2.  Belief  in  evolution  changes  the  interpretation  of  many  passages 
of  Scripture  from  that  now  received  by  the  church. 

3.  The  view  that  Adam's  body  was  evolved  from  lower  animals, 
and  not  formed  by  a  supernatural  act  of  God,  is  dangerous  and 
hurtful. 

4.  The  theory  that  Adam's  body  was  formed  by  tlie  law  of  evolu- 
tion, while  Eve's  was  created  by  a  supernatural  act  of  God,  is  con- 
trary to  our  standards  {Confession  of  Faith,  Chap,  iv.,  Sec.  2; 
Larger  Catechism,  Quest.  17),  as  those  standards  have  been  and  are 
interpreted  by  our  church. 

5.  The  advocacy  of  views  which  have  received  neither  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  board  nor  of  the  Synods  having  control  of  the  Sem- 
inary; which  have  not  been  established  by  science;  which  have  no 
authority  from  the  word  of  God;  which  tend  to  unsettle  the  received 
interpretation  of  many  passages  of  Scripture,  and  to  weaken  the 
confidence  of  the  church  in  her  standards ;  which  have  already  pro- 
duced so  much  evil  by  their  agitation,  and  which  will  injure  the 
Seminary,  and  may  rend  our  church — ought  not  to  be  allowed. 

Pkocekdings  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina. 

Some  six  weeks  after  this  meeting  of  the  board,  the 
Synod  of  South  Carolina  met,  under  considerable  excite- 
ment. The  other  controlling  synods  which  w^ere  to  meet 
shortly  afterwards  were  also  fully  alive  to  the  import- 
ance of  the  occasion  and  the  question  that  was  to  arise. 

Meantime  a  number  of  synods,  besides  the  four  con- 
trolling ones,  and  many  presb^'teries  also,  seemed  to  con- 
sider it  w^as  their  duty  to  condemn  the  Perkins  Professor. 
The  S\Tiods  of  Kentucky  and  J^ashville,  and  I  believe 
]\rississippi  and  Virginia,  had  all  anticipated  the  four 
synods  in  giving  their  judgment  of  his  case.     Even  the 


458  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

General  Assembly  as  early  as  May,  1886,  on  the  first 
day  of  its  meetinc;  appointed  a  special  committee  of  thir- 
teen to  receive  and  handle  overtures  on  this  subject  which 
it  was  expected  would  be  sent  in. 

The  intelligent  student  of  ecclesiastical  history,  who 
considers  the  matter  fairly,  will  not  wonder  much  at  any 
of  these  manifestations  of  popular  excitement.  The  nine- 
teenth century  is  far  in  advance  of  the  sixteenth  century 
as  to  some  matters,  let  us  say  in  civilization,  in  mechan- 
ical inventions  and  the  arts,  and  in  popular  education,  but 
the  men  of  the  sixteenth  century  in  Europe  had  as  much 
common  sense  and  were  endowed  with  as  clear  perceptions 
and  as  sound  judgment  as  belong  to  the  people  of  these 
States  now.  As  to  our  educated  classes,  they  are  no  more 
in  possession  of  all  science  than  educated  men  were  three 
hundred  years  ago.  The  devout  Roman  Catholic  people 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  even  their  most  learned 
ecclesiastics,  and  still  more  the  Pope  himself,  could  not 
bear  to  hear  that  the  sun  did  not  rise  nor  set,  nor  that  this 
steadfast  old  earth  was  rolling  round  on  its  own  axis  and 
whirling  with  the  steam  engine's  speed  around  the  sun. 
How  could  our  plain  Presbyterians,  taught  from  their 
childhood  to  believe  every  word  of  the  Bible  just  as  it  is 
translated,  or  our  most  eminent  doctors  of  divinity,  hold- 
ing fast  to  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  word  of  God, 
tolerate  any  other  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  account 
of  man's  creation  than  that  the  Almighty  formed  his  body 
out  of  literal  inorganic  dust  ?  Theological  education  does 
not  teach  any  of  the  secrets  of  chemistry  or  the  other 
sciences ;  how  can  it  possibly  expound  all  the  mysteries  of 
creation  ? 

There  was  anti-evolution  in  the  air,  and  a  large  attend- 
ance gathered  at  the  First  Church  in  Greenville  on  Wed- 
nesday, the  2 2d  of  October,  1884,  where  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina  was  to  meet  at  eight  o'clock  p.  m.  The 
Rev.  J.  S.  White,  of  Bethel  Presbytery,  was  elected  Mod- 
erator, and  Rev.  R.  A.  Webb,  Temporary  Clerk.  The 
Standing  Committee  on  the  Theological  Seminary  con- 
sisted of  Rev.  Messrs.  J.  S.  Cozby,  G.  R.  Brackett,  D.  D., 
and  R.  A.  Webb,  with  Ruling  Elders  Silas  Johnstone  and 
F.  L.  Anderson.     The  first  special  order  of  the  day  on 


CONTROVEESIES    OF   SCIENCE.  459 

Thiii'sdav  was  postponed  in  order  to  admit  the  report  of 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary. 

The  report  being  read,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Girardeau  moved 
that  so  much  of  it  as  related  to  the  Perkins  Professorship 
be  immediately  considered  by  the  Committee  on  the  Sem- 
inary, and  that  a  report  on  the  same  be  made  to  the  Synod 
as  soon  as  possible.  This  motion  was  unanimously 
adopted.  The  committee  retired.  In  the  evening  the 
church  building  was  crowded  to  its  utmost  capacity,  and 
the  report  was  awaited  with  the  keenest  interest. 

The  majority  reported : 

1.  That  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  respecting  the  earth,  the  lower 
animals,  and  man's  body,  being  a  purely  scientific  and  extra  scrip- 
tural theory,  the  church,  as  such,  is  not  called  upon  to  make  any 
deliverance  concerning  its  truth  or  falsity.  2.  That  the  church, 
being  set  for  the  defence  of  the  gospel  and  the  promulgation  of 
scriptural  doctrines,  can  never,  without  transcending  her  proper 
sphere,  incorporate  into  her  Confession  of  Faith  any  of  the  hypoth- 
eses, theories  or  systems  of  human  science.  3.  That  while  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  in  its  relations  to  Scripture 
falls  necessarily  within  the  scope  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  the 
Perkins  Professorship,  nevertheless,  neither  this  nor  any  other 
scientific  hypothesis  is,  or  can  be,  taught  in  our  Theological  Semi- 
nary as  an  article  of  church  faith.  4.  That,  in  view  of  the  above 
considerations,  the  Synod  sees  no  sufficient  reason  to  interfere  with 
the  present  order  of  our  Theological  Seminary  as  determined  by  the 
Board  of  Directors. 

(Signed)  J.  S.  Cozby, 

G.  E.  Brackett, 
Silas  Johnstone. 

The  minority  report  was : 

1.  That  the  question,  whether  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  in  regard  to 
evolution  involve  heresy,  is  not  before  the  Synod.  2.  That  the  Synod 
was  not  called  on  to  decide  the  question  whether  the  views  of  Dr. 
Woodrow  contradict  the  Bible  in  its  highest  and  most  absolute 
sense,  but  whether  they  contradict  the  interpretations  of  the  Bible  by 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  3.  That  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Directors,  that  "the  relations  subsisting  be- 
tween the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  the  teachings  of  natural 
science  are  plainly,  correctly,  and  satisfactorily  set  forth"  in  Dr. 
Woodrow's  address  on  evolution,  was  inexpedient  and  injudicious. 
4.  That  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors  virtually  approving  the 


460  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

inculcation  and  the  defence  of  the  said  hypothesis,  CA'en  as  a  prob- 
able one,  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  as  being  contrary  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scriptures  by  our  church  and  to  her  prevailing 
and  recognized  view,  is,  a  majority  of  the  associated  Synods  con- 
curring, hereby  prohibited. 

(Signed)  R.  A.  Webb, 

F.  L.  Anderson. 

After  a  brief  delay,  Mr.  Webb  rose  and  moved  the  adop- 
tion of  the  minority  report.  Rev.  J.  L.  Martin  moved  the 
adoption  of  the  majority  report  as  a  snbstitnte. 

A  brief  parliamentary  discussion  ensued,  Rev.  Dr.  Gi- 
rardeau contending  that  under  the  custom  of  Synod  the 
last  resolution  of  the  majority  report  ought  not  to  be  en- 
tertained. The  Moderator  overruled  the  objection,  and 
Dr.  Girardeau  appealed.  His  appeal  was  submitted  to 
Synod,  and  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  was  sustained  on 
a  viva  voce  vote,  evidently  by  a  large  majority,  no  division 
being  called  for. 

The  majority  report  was  then  taken  up  and  discussed. 

This  memorable  debate  lasted  five  days.  It  is  of  course 
impossible  for  me  to  report  it  in  full.  What  I  report  is. 
chiefly  taken  from  the  Southern  Presbyterian  of  October 
30,  1884,  and  it  received  its  reports  from  the  Greenville 
News  and  the  Charteston  News  and  Courier  of  those  days. 
I  have  had  to  omit  entirely  some  of  the  speeches,  and  to 
shorten  the  rest  very  much.  I  hope  to  be  found  dealing 
with  every  speaker  in  absolute  fairness.  The  reports  in 
general  were  far  from  being  altogether  clear,  and  some 
of  the  speakers  have  claimed  the  right  to  improve  or  ex- 
plain the  reports  of  what  they  said. 

Rev.  J.  S.  Cozby,  chairman  of  the  committee,  oj^ened 
the  debate,  explaining  the  significance  of  the  report.  It 
was  simply  this,  that  the  church  as  such  can  express  no 
judgment  as  to  any  extra-scriptural  matter.  He  asked 
the  question,  where  does  this  hypothesis  come  from  ?  It 
certainly  does  not  come  from  the  scriptures,  and  t:\o  one 
will  question  that  it  is  purely  a  scientific  one;  and  the 
position  of  the  majority  report  is  tliat  the  church  as  such 
is  not  called  upon  to  express  any  judgment  as  to  the  truth 
or  falsity  of  any  such  extra-scriptural  hypothesis.  In 
that  lies  the  settlement  of  the  whole  question.     If  we  pass 


CONTROVERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  461 

judgment  on  a  question  like  this  there  will  be  no  limit  to 
our  scope  of  judginent.  We  could  as  well  decide  ques- 
tions of  politics  or  anything  else.  As  individuals  we  can 
have  our  opinions  respecting  matters  of  science,  but  as  a 
^church  we  can  have  none.  As  to  the  third  resolution,  let 
me  say  that  the  Perkins  Professor  in  his  teaching  could 
not  avoid  this  question.  The  very  object  of  his  chair,  as 
endowed  by  Judge  Perkins,  was  that  he  should  investigate 
this  and  other  like  questions.  We  had  accepted  the  en- 
dowment and  elected  the  Professor  to  do  precisely  this 
very  work.  Infidel  scientists  are  attacking  the  Bible.  It 
Avas  the  very  business  of  Dr.  Woodrow  to  show  that  God's 
word  is  impregnable. 

Rev.  John  B.  Adger,  D.  D.,  said:  '''Infidelity  was  con- 
tinually changing  her  ground.  We  have  routed  her  al- 
ready on  many  fields.  For  many  years  past  her  chosen 
groimd  has  been  natural  science,  hence  the  widespread 
opinion  that  natural  science  is  the  enemy  of  the  gospel, 
which  is  a  very  great  error.  Many  writers  on  theology 
teach  heresy,  but  do  you  say  that  theology  itself  is  heresy  ? 
God  in  nature  is  the  same  as  God  in  his  word,  and  there 
can  therefore  be  no  contradiction  between  the  teachings 
of  nature  and  revelation  when  both  are  properly  under- 
stood. Many  ministers  have  made  themselves  the  laugh- 
ing stock  of  scientific  men  by  advancing  such  fearful  ab- 
surdities in  their  ignorant  endeavors  to  defend  the  Bible. 
I  know  what  the  minority  report  means.  I  know  what 
this  opposition  to  the  board's  report  signifies.  It  is  that 
jou  must  abolish,  or  else  fundamentally  alter,  this  Per- 
kins professorshii:).  It  is  a  nuisance,  a  dangerous  and 
fatal  one,  overturning  the  faith  of  our  church.  But  if 
JOU  listen  to  this  outcry,  a  loud  shout  of  triumph  will  go 
up  from  the  camp  of  unbelief.  It  will  be  said,  you  se- 
lected your  man ;  you  put  forward  your  best  man ;  you 
said  to  him,  study  the  question  of  the  relation  of  scrip- 
ture and  science,  and  the  very  first  time  he  spoke,  you 
■could  not  bear  to  hear  what  he  said.  There  is  no  better 
way  of  encouraging  infidelity  than  this  policy  of  placing 
the  church  in  the  way  of  science,  and  manifesting  that 
the  church  is  afraid  of  it.  I  say  that  if  this  synod  and  our 
associated  synods  shall  adopt  this  policy,  I  shall  hang  my 


462  ]MY  LIFE  AND  TIMER. 

head,  Avhatover  the  rest  of  yon  may  do.  I  pray  God  that 
no  snch  dishonor  as  this  is  to  be  done  to  God's  truth  and 
to  his  word  as  to  show  that  we  have  any  apprehensions 
from  the  discoveries  of  real  science. 

"We  are  tohl  by  the  minority  report  that  there  is  no 
charge  of  heresy  against  Dr.  Woodrow.  This  is  what  they 
say.  What  then  is  the  trouble  ?  Why,  merely  that  he  i& 
'inculcating  an  unproved  hypothesis.'  What  is  an  un- 
proved hypothesis  i  It  is  an  open  question,  a  thing  ad- 
mitting of  debate.  It  can  hardly  be  true  that  he  would 
inculcate  what  is  an  open  question  or  a  thing  admitting  of 
debate,  though  he  should  acquaint  the  students  that  there 
is  such  a  question  and  what  is  said  for  it.  Is  the  instruc- 
tion in  the  Seminary  to  be  confined  entirely  to  what  is 
proved  to  be  true  ?  They  tell  us  the  genius  of  the  Theo-. 
logical  Seminary  is  dogmatic.  I  maintain  that  its  geniu& 
is  that  of  inquiry  into  all  truth.  It  will  not  do  to  teach 
those  students  to  fear  and  shun  any  truth.  It  Avas 
through  the  discussion  of  unproved  hypotheses  for  age& 
that  the  church  came  to  determine  the  clear  and  positive 
teachings  of  scripture  theology.  AVhen  the  light  of  in- 
spiration was  withdrawn,  many  and  various  interpreta- 
tions of  scripture  arose  among  her  members,  and  the 
church  had  to  contend  with  unproved  hypotheses  for  long 
centuries  before  she  reached  the  settled  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  IS^ext  came  the  discusssions  about  fallen  man, 
original  sin,  and  the  doctrines  of  grace,  and  the  church 
had  to  meet  the  unproved  hypotheses  of  Pelagius  and 
others  of  her  professed  sons.  Must  the  students  have  no 
information  about  the  connection  between  Pelagianism 
and  the  scriptures  ?  After  the  dark  ages  the  Tieformers 
had  to  begin  again  the  discussion  of  unproved  hypotheses. 
But  we  are  now  told  that  in  this  age  the  only  questions  to 
be  considered  in  the  Seminary  are  the  settled  doctrines 
of  the  church.  Are  they  to  hear  nothing  of  the  errors  of 
Rome  and  Unitarianism  lest  they  should  become  infected 
with  the  same  ?  Is  our  church  entirely  settled  about  her 
OA\Ti  theology,  or  as  to  every  question  regarding  church 
government  and  discipline  ?  Is  it  not  well  understood 
that  our  Book  of  Church  Order  is  a  compromise,  the  re- 
sult of  mutual  concessions  ?     Then  there  is  the  unproved 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  463 

hypothesis  of  the  lawfulness  of  instrumental  music  in 
Christian  worship,  respecting  which  Dr.  Girardeau  and 
I  are  entirely  agreed.  But  has  he  not  the  right  as  a  pro- 
fessor to  discuss  before  his  classes  that  unproved  hypothe- 
sis, or  the  other  one  about  the  millennium  ?  And  is  he 
not  accustomed  every  Thursday  evening  to  join  the  other 
professors  and  the  students  in  discussing  all  sorts  of  im- 
proved hypotheses  ?" 

Kev,  J.  B.  Mack,  D.  D.,  said :  ''I  have  been  amazed  and 
amused  at  the  argument  of  the  brother  who  has  just  sat 
down.  He  said  in  one  breath  that  if  Synod  sustained  the 
minority  report,  it  would  brand  Dr.  Woodrow  as  an  in- 
fidel, and  in  the  next  showed  that  the  minority  has  not 
even  accused  Dr.  Woodrow  of  heresy.  The  discussion  is 
a  vital  one  for  the  Seminary.  Its  issue  will  decide 
whether  the  institution  shall  die  and  be  buried,  or 
whether  it  will  continue  to  stand  a  faithful  witness  to  the 
truth  of  God.  It  will  decide  whether  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Church  will  stand  beautiful,  strong  and  pure  as 
in  the  by-gone  days,  or  whether  she  will  prove  a  degen- 
erate daughter  of  her  noble  mother. 

"What  is  the  position  of  the  minority  ?  It  does  not 
charoe  infidelitv  against  Dr.  Woodrow%  and  the  assertion 
that  it  does  is  unworthy  of  men  seeking  the  truth.  When 
a  man  believes  in  the  inspiration  of  God's  word,  he  is  not 
an  infidel,  whether  he  be  Arminian,  Unitarian,  or  Presby- 
terian. The  Perkins  Professor  is  not  charged  with  her- 
esy ;  his  resignation  is  not  asked  for.  The  Perkins  Pro- 
fessor sinks  into  insignificance  in  comparison  with  the 
great  question  at  stake,  and  even  the  life  or  death  of  the 
Seminary  is  a  small  thing.  The  character  of  the  South- 
ern Church  is  on  trial  before  the  world.  That  is  why  the 
minority  have  carefully  avoided  personalities,  and  sought 
to  place  the  issue  squarely  before  the  board. 

"The  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  that  God  created  one  or 
a  few  forms  and  from  them  evolved  all  the  various  organ- 
ized beings  on  the  earth.  By  the  natural  law  of  evolu- 
tion, forms  more  compact  and  various  were  gradually 
evolved,  and  were  not  created  by  any  supernatural  act. 
One  application  of  this  principle  is  that  Adam  was  finally 
evolved  from  a  brute." 


464  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

Dr.  Mack  quoted  from  Dr.  Woodrow's  address,  and 
said  its  teacliing  was  that  Adam  was  the  son  of  a  male  and 
female  brute,  and  was  born  a  baby  brute.  "It  belongs  to 
men  of  science  to  ascertain  facts,  base  a  theory  on  them, 
and  present  them  for  the  consideration  of  logical  minds. 
But  can  any  man  say  that  this  hypothesis  is  true,  and 
can  it  be  taught  to  the  children  of  the  church  as  truth  ?  If 
we  cannot  say  whether  a  thing  is  quinine  or  arsenic, 
should  we  administer  it  to  our  households  ?  If  the  synod 
has  no  power  over  this  professorship,  it  should  never  have 
been  created,  for  none  can  tell  whether  truth  or  error  is 
being  taught.  The  Southern  Church  has  boasted  that  it 
kept  the  crown  pure  and  bright,  while  the  JSTorthern 
Church  descended  to  consider  political  and  other  ques- 
tions. Now  it  is  proposed  to  cast  that  crown  do^n^  to  be 
trampled  under  the  feet  of  the  Cnesar  of  science.  If  this 
theory  deals  with  the  Bible,  has  Synod  no  right  to  deal 
with  it?  What  is  a  minister  but  an  authorized  inter- 
preter of  God's  word  %  What  are  the  church  courts  but 
the  same?  Dr.  Adger  has  declared  that  the  Seminary  is 
the  place  to  teach  unproved  hypotheses.  My  impression 
is  that  the  Seminary  is  the  place  to  teach  young  men  to 
preach  the  word  and  say,  'We  believe,  and  therefore  we 
teach.' 

"I  deny  that  the  church  required  centuries  to  find  her 
God.  She  knew  him  in  the  first  century,  finding  him  liy 
reading  the  word,  and  having  it  interpreted  by  the  Spirit, 
not  by  the  study  of  unproved  hypotheses.  Woe  be  the  day 
when  the  Columbia  Seminary  will  be  a  place  for  trifling 
with  unproved  hypotheses.  It  will  be  a  very  plague  spot. 
What  use  will  a  minister  have  for  unproved  hypotheses  ? 
When  men  come  to  him  to  know  what  to  do  to  be  saved  or 
for  comfort,  or  when  their  feet  trod  the  verge  of  Jordan, 
could  or  would  a  minister  comfort  them  with  an  unproved 
hypothesis  ? 

"Professor  Agassiz  has  pronounced  the  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution a  scientific  blunder,  untrue  in  fact,  unscientific  in 
teaching,  and  ruinous  in  tendency.  The  evolution  of  Dr. 
Woodrow  is  the  evolution  of  Darwin  modified.  Darwin 
says  that  both  the  body  and  the  spirit  of  man  were 
evolved.     Dr.  Woodrow,  in  his  explanation  of  his  theory, 


CONTKOVEESIES    OF    SCIEXCE. 


465 


•explicitly  excludes  mention  of  the  power  by  which  the 
thing  was  done.  Seven  points  of  similarity  show  that  the 
doctrine  of  Darwin  and  that  of  Dr.  Woodrow  are  alike. 
The  theory  contradicts  the  interpretation  given  by  the 
chnrch  to  several  passages  of  scripture.  The  church  in- 
terprets the  'dust'  in  the  Bible  literally.  Every  man's 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  constitutes  his  Bible.  The 
Presbyterian  interpretation  of  the  Bible  is  the  Presby- 
terian Bible.  JSTobody  wants  to  interfere  with  the  right 
of  private  judgment,  but  Synod  has  the  right  to  interfere 
w^hen  its  authorized  representative  instills  doctrines  in 
its  rising  ministers  which  the  church  cannot  believe. 

''The  teaching  of  future  ministers  that  Adam  was 
-evolved  and  Eve  created  is  contrary  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Larger  Catechism.  The  Confession  sets 
forth  that  after  God  had  created  all  other  creatures  he 
-created  man,  male  and  female,  with  inmiortal  and  reason- 
able souls.  The  Catechism  teaches  that  God  created  man, 
male  and  female,  that  he  created  man  from  the  dust  and 
^vonian  from  his  rib,  and  gave  them  living,  reasonable  and 
immortal  souls.  The  interpretation  of  the  story  of  crea- 
tion by  the  church  is  that  God,  by  a  supernatural  act, 
created  the  body  and  soul  of  x\dam  and  Eve.  He  created 
man,  entire,  body  and  soul.  This  Confession  of  Faith  is 
the  bond  of  union  in  the  church. 

"The  question  of  Synod  is  whether  the  church  shall 
■stand  by  her  time-honored  standards  and  adhere  to  the 
pure  principles  announced  at  her  very  organization,  when 
she  declared  that  she  would  preach  nothing  but  the  gospel, 
or  whether,  in  the  language  of  the  distinguished  and  ven- 
erable Dr.  B.  M.  Palmer,  of  l\ew  Orleans  (where  the 
presbytery  adopted  a  resolution  against  the  teaching  of 
evolution  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  two) ,  she  shall  leave 
all  and  run  after  this  'new  departure.'  " 

Dr.  Mack  then  took  up  the  resolutions  of  the  minority 
•of  the  Board  of  Directors.  "There  is  no  charge  of  infi- 
delity or  heresy  against  Dr.  Woodrow,  and  no  request  for 
his  resignation,  or  that  he  shall  cease  to  teach  the  proba- 
bility of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  [?].  The  issue  pre- 
sented is  whether  an  appointed  teacher  of  one  of  the  two 
■seminaries  of  the  church  shall  teach  the  doctrine,  the  un- 


466  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

proved  hypothesis,  the  purely  scientific  and  extra-scrip- 
tural theory,  that  the  higher  species  were  evolved  from 
the  lower,  and  that  the  body  of  our  federal  head  and  fa- 
tlier,  Adam,  was  derived  from  a  brnte.  All  personal 
praise  of  Dr.  Woodrow  is  out  of  place  in  this  discussion. 

"I  have  wondered  at  the  action  of  the  majority  of  the 
board,  but  have  come  to  believe  that  God  permitted  them 
to  be  blind  that  the  matter  might  be  taken  squarely  before 
the  church.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  contended  that  the  evolu- 
tion theory  is  the  view,  but  not  the  teaching,  of  the  Per- 
kins Professor.  Such  a  claim  will  put  him  in  a  very  bad 
light,  for  the  address  was  elicited  by  a  request  'for  his 
views  as  taught.'  " 

Dr.  jNlack  closed  with  the  warning  that  the  action  of  the 
Seminary's  best  friends  in  other  States  indicated  that 
they  looked  on  this  new  doctrine  as  a  breach  of  faith  and  a 
betrayal  of  their  confidence ;  and  that  if  this  evil  was  not 
rcoted  out,  the  Church  would  be  divided  and  the  Semi- 
nary irretrievablv  injured. 

Eev.  W.  F.  Junkin,  D.  D.,  said :  'Mlad  I  drawn  that 
report,  I  should  have  made  the  language  more  forcible, 
report  expresses.  I  would  have  this  Synod  say,  in  Ian- 
more  forcible  way  to  the  underlying  thought  which  that 
report  expresses.  I  would  have  this  synod  say,  in  lan- 
guage so  clear  and  explicit  that  none  should  fail  to  under- 
stand its  significance,  that  we  discredit  and  disallow,  and, 
so  far  as  our  authority  goes,  prohibit  the  enunciation  of 
doctrines  such  as  are  reported  to  be  taught  in  the  Cohun- 
bia  Theological  Seminary. 

"It  has  been  asked  in  the  progress  of  the  discussion,  in 
the  midst  of  our  theological  lights,  do  we  intend  to  re- 
enact  the  history  of  Galileo  in  the  Dark  Ages  ?  You  may 
regard  it  as  the  very  height  of  hardihood  in  me,  but  T 
dare,  in  this  presence  and  in  this  age,  to  afiirm,  and  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  it,  tliat  the  ])osition  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  that  connection  is  the  one  that  the  churcli  in  all  ages 
will  be  called  upon  to  occupy.  The  church,  and  very 
properly,  said  to  Galileo,  'So  long  as  you  bear  our  cre- 
dentials, you  shall  not  utter  things  which  we  Itelievo  to 
be  untrue.'     The  church  cannot  and  will  not  dare  to  al- 


CONTEOVEESIES    OF   SCIENCE.  467 

low  her  doctrines,  which  she  hokls  to  be  true,  to  be  suc- 
cessfully assailed  or  controverted. 

"My "sincere  conviction  is  that  the  students  of  this  doc- 
trine of  evolution,  as  it  is  commonly  understood,  will  be- 
come even  more  scientific  than  their  instructors  them- 
selves. Let  them  take  home  with  them  the  theory  of  evo- 
lution and  believe  it  on  the  authority  of  a  successful 
leader.  Will  they  stop  at  the  point  where  their  honored 
professor  would  stop  'i  I  trow  not,  sir.  It  is  not  the  weak 
ones  who  start  a  heresy.  It  is  the  flash  of  the  meteor 
which  marks  the  fall  of  the  star.  The  theory  breaks 
do^ai  that  reverence  and  that  confidence  in  God's  word 
which  is  the  great  security  of  our  Christian  faith.  The 
theory  places  the  church  in  the  attitude  of  listening  to  a 
proposition  coming  from  science  to  alter  its  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  of  God  ;  and  that  alteration  to  be  made  in 
view  of  statements  made  to  it  by  science  in  favor  of  the- 
ories that  have  not  been  demonstrated  to  be  true.  Lastly,, 
I  argue  that,  knowing  as  we  do  the  origin  of  the  human 
body,  the  soul  v/ould  shrink  with  repugnance  and  abhor- 
rence from  the  nature  and  mode  of  creation  ascribed  to  it 
by  the  theory  under  discussion." 

[My  report  of  Professor  Ilemphiirs  speech  is  taken 
from  the  Louisville  Courier  Journal.^ 

Professor  C.  R.  Hemphill,  D.  D.,  said:  "This  question 
is  vital.  In  this  respect  I  agree  with  the  brethren  on  the 
other  side.  The  principles  at  stake  are  those  of  truth, 
righteousness,  and  justice.  I  propose  to  show  that  if  this 
body  adopt  the  minority  report  (enjoining  silence  upon 
Professor  Woodrow),  it  will  traverse  each  and  every  one 
of  these  grand  priiiciples.  What  is  the  question  before 
us  ?  I  read  the  minority  report.  The  first  resolution  in 
it  affirms  that  there  is  no  question  before  the  Synod  of 
'heresy'  in  the  teachings  of  the  Perkins  chair,  and  yet  this 
whole  discussion  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  there 
is  heresy.  What  is  heresy  ?  According  to  our  standards, 
heresy  is  something  in  conflict  with  the  word  of  God  as 
interpreted  in  our  Confession  and  Catechisms.  If  a 
presbyter  holds  and  teaches  what  contradicts  these  stand- 
ards, he  holds  and  teaches  heresy.  That  is  the  only  con- 
ception of  heresy  which  can  properly  come  before  this- 


468  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

body.  Dr.  Woodrow's  teaching  has  been  denounced  as 
heresy,  enormous  and  hurtful  heresy.  This  very  day  it 
has  been  insinuated  on  this  floor  that  you  may  no  more 
substitute  for  the  chiklren  of  the  church,  instead  of  truth, 
his  teachings  than  you  could  give  to  them  instead  of 
quinine  the  deadly  arsenic.  So  also  it  has  been  charged 
to-day  that  the  evolution  of  Dr.  Woodrow  is  the  evolution 
of  Darwin  modified,  and  that  seven  points  of  similarit}' 
show  them  to  be  the  same.  In  fact  this  whole  discussion 
proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  there  is  heresy.  Our 
opponents  who  have  charged  heresy  for  the  Professor,  or 
•even  those  who  think  it  of  him,  will  stultify  themselves  if 
they  vote  for  that  resolution  which  says  there  is  no 
heresy." 

He  then  read  the  second  resolution. 

"The  question  is  not,  say  the  minority,  whether  these 
teachings  contradict  the  Bible  in  its  highest  and  absolute 
sense,  but  whether  they  contradict  the  interpretations  of 
the  Bible  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States.  The  Presbyterian  Church  has  no  interpretation 
-except  those  in  her  standards.  I  challenge  the  proof  of 
any  other.  Some  of  you  remember  what  one  of  the  speak- 
ers (Dr.  Adger)  mentioned  last  night,  that  in  the  Old 
School  Assembly,  while  we  formed  part  of  it,  Dr.  R.  J. 
Breckinridge,  whom  all  consider  a  high  type  of  Presby- 
terian, urged  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  prepare 
a  church  commentary.  But  the  Assembly  sat  down  on 
the  proposition  and  crushed  it  forever.  Even  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge's great  influence  could  not  persuade  the  church  to 
put  forth  interpretations  of  scripture  other  than  those  in 
her  Confession.  But  the  advocates  of  the  minority  report 
try  to  make  us  believe  that  there  are  somewhere  else  inter- 
pretations of  the  Bible  accepted  by  the  church  other  than 
those  in  her  standards.  JSTo  logic  can  justify  that  patched- 
up  paper.  I  like  the  last  speaker  (Dr.  Junkin),  who 
wished  to  go  beyond  the  minority  report.  I  honor  that 
position,  because  it  is  consistent  with  logic.  But  to  say 
there  is  no  heresy,  and  yet  to  treat  a  man  as  if  guilty  of 
lieresy,  is  wholly  unjustifiable.  I  confess  great  sympathy 
for  the  opposition.  They  have  hung  out  a  flag  of  distress 
T^y  ofl'ering  that  paper.     In  tones  of  thunder  thev  have 


CONTKOVEKSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  469 

proclaimed  that  heresy  is  taught  in  the  Seminary  and  en- 
dorsed by  the  board.  It  is  a  call  to  the  church  to  come  to 
the  rescue.  I  expected  to  discuss  the  real  issue,  but  in- 
stead a  paper  is  presented  to  catch  every  breeze  of  oppo- 
sition, as  well  as  the  sweeping  tornado  of  heresy.  I  wish 
they  would  stand  by  their  last  speaker  (Dr.  Junkin).  We 
hold  them  to  the  point.  The  paper  does  not  claim  that 
Dr.  Woodrow  contradicts  the  Bible,  but  only  certain  in- 
terpretations of  it ;  not  those  interpretations  in  the  Con- 
fession which  constitute  the  system  of  doctrine  to  which 
we  are  all  pledged,  but  outside  the  Confession,  somewhere 
or  other ;   we  are  not  told  where. 

"This  whole  affair  is  of  the  nature  of  a  trial.  Both  the 
Perkins  Professor  and  the  board  are  on  trial,  the  one  for 
teaching  heresy,  the  other  for  endorsing  it.  I  ask  them  to 
specify  the  article  of  the  Confession  which  has  been  vio- 
lated. That  minority  report  is  a  paper  unworthy  to  be 
presented  to  this  body,  affirming  that  the  endorsement 
of  Dr.  Woodrow's  general  principles  is  'injudicious  and 
inexpedient,'  and  yet  assigning  no  reason  for  the  asser- 
tion, not  affirming  that  it  was  wrong,  but  'inexpedient,' 
thus  evading  the  cpiestion  whether  the  teaching  were  right 
or  wrong. 

"Their  expression  'inculcating'  evolution  (resolution 
4)  is  a  phrase  apt  to  mislead,  if  the  language  be  taken  in 
its  ordinary  sense.  Evolution  is  not  defended  or  'incul- 
cated' in  the  sense  which  their  words  would  imply.  What 
are  the  teachings  of  Professor  Woodrow  ?  What  the  ob- 
ject and  scope  of  his  chair  ?  Listen  to  a  brief  exposition 
of  this  point.  The  object  of  this  chair  is  to  teach  the 
connection  subsisting  between  natural  science  and  revela- 
tion. This  chair  has  a  more  definite  object  than  any  other 
in  the  institution.  What  is  the  relation  between  science 
and  the  Bible  ?  Does  the  Bible  contradict  any  of  the  well- 
ascertained  facts  of  science  ?  There  is  no  possible  contra- 
diction between  these  facts  and  any  passage  of  scripture 
as  originally  given  to  us  by  God.  What  then  are  the  re- 
lations between  scripture  and  science  ?  The  Professor  al- 
ways insists  on  the  absolute  inerrancy  of  God's  word. 
But  he  informs  his  students  of  the  facts  which  evolution 
has  discovered.    It  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  to  Bible 


470  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

students,  as  such,  whether  what  evolution  says  is  true  or 
false.     But  the  Professor  shows  his  students  that  there  is 
a  well-ascertained  continual  upward  progress   in   God's 
creating  work,  for  God  is  still  working  in  creation.     He 
also  informs  them  what  many  atheistic  scientists  have  in- 
ferred from  the.se  facts  to  the  dishonor  of  God's  holy  in- 
fallible word.     So  much  for  what  he  says  of  the  facts  of 
evolution.    Then  turning  to  the  infallible  word  of  God  as 
we  have  it  translated,  he  admits  that  the  word  dust  can- 
not be  literally  insisted  on  as  the  necessary  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew  word  it  represents.    In  some  such  way  as  this 
he  show^s  the  relations  between  holy  scripture  and  science, 
God's  word  and  God's  w^orks,  never  mutually  contradic- 
tory, though  we  may  not  be  able  to  set  forth  their  har- 
mony.    He  docs  not  inculcate  evolution  any  more  than 
astronomy.     He  only  shows  how  it  really  stands  related 
to  God's  w^ord.     Only  this  and  nothing  more.     And  the 
opposition  now  wush  to  deprive  him  of  the  poor  little  priv- 
ilege of  giving  his  owm  private  opinion  as  to  these  things. 
I  was  often  struck  while  a  student  wdth  his  painful  faith- 
fulness in  this  respect,  that  he  persisted  in  teaching  sim- 
ply the  relation  of  natural  science  with  the  Bible.     They 
talk  about  his  'new  departure.'    Did  he  say  when  entering 
that  Seminary  that  he  did  not  believe  in  evolution?     Or 
has  a  man  no  right  to  make  progress  after  becoming  a 
professor  in  a  theological  seminary  ?     Are  you  going  to 
hold  him  to  the  view  that  at  his  entrance  he  knows  every- 
thing that  he  ever  will  know  ?    A  pitiful  company  of  pro- 
fessors !     'We  know  all !'    According  to  ideas  of  the  Ken- 
tucky Synod,  not  only  knowing  what  is,  but  also  wdiat  will 
be.     They  look  into  the  future  and  know  what  they  will 
not  believe.     Does  Dr.  Woodrow  teach  the  doctrines  of 
science  in  the  same  sense  and  for  the  same  purpose  as  Dr. 
Girardeau  teaches  the  atonement  ?  or  as  Dr.  Boggs  teaches 
the  facts  of  biblical  history  ?  or  the  professor  of  biblical 
literature  teaches  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  ?     It  is  a 
misleading  expression  as  used  in  the  minority  report,  'in- 
culcation and  defence.'    The  very  purpose  of  the  Perkins 
chair  forbids  such  teaching;  not  science  for  its  own  sake, 
but  science  in  its  'connection'  with  the  Bible,  is  what  Dr. 
Woodrow  teaches.      It   is  a  play  on  words,   'teaching,' 


CONTEOVEESIES   OF    SCIENCE.  471 

"'teaching/  'teaching  evolution/  as  thej  are  continually 
harping  on  the  expression.  I  believe  as  a  fact  that  there 
is  not  one  of  his  pupils  who  believes  in  evolution,  and 
there  is  not  likely  ever  to  be  one,  so  far  as  the  teachings 
of  Dr.  Woodrow  are  concerned. 

"I  come  now  to  the  very  core  of  this  discussion,  and  ask 
your  fixed  attention.  What  is  a  theological  seminary? 
Where  is  the  definition  of  it  in  our  standards  ?  It  is  not 
there.  This  is  the  most  complete  back  down  that  I  ever 
saw.  I  wish  to  show  the  results  of  their  position.  'The 
seminary  cannot  teach  what  the  church  cannot  teach.' 
What  is  the  church  to  teach  ?  Spiritual  truth  ;  only  that 
and  nothing  more.  The  seminary  cannot,  therefore, 
teach  in  any  way  metaphysics,  church  history,  Hebrew 
and  Greek  grammar,  because  the  church  cannot  do  it! 
Stand  by  your  argument. 

"The  seminary  is  not  even  recognized  in  our  standards. 
How  can  it  then  be  the  church's  organ  for  teaching  what 
she  is  responsible  for  'i  Show  by  the  standards  what  the 
seminary  must  say.  You  cannot  do  it.  Is  the  church, 
therefore,  responsible  for  every  utterance  of  each  pro- 
fessor ?  What  is  a  seminary  ?  There  is  no  command  to 
create  one.  The  'Church  in  the  United  States'  has  no 
such  creature,  and  cannot  then  be  responsible  for  its 
teachings.  Who  then  is  responsible  ?  The  four  'asso- 
ciated synods'  that  created  it.  They  might  have  adopted 
different  measures  had  they  so  pleased.  For  fear  one 
might  teach  heresy  they  might  have  ordained  that  stu- 
dents memorize  and  recite  scripture  'without  note  or  com- 
ment,' or  else  the  language  of  our  standards,  forbidding 
the  professor  to  make  any  remarks,  lest  he  teach  heresy. 
What  were  the  methods  adopted  'i  The  Constitution 
answers. 

"It  is  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  not  on  trial.  I  empha- 
size the  fact  that  he  is  on  trial,  and  yet  without  safe- 
guards or  the  privileges  provided  by  this  Constitution  (of 
the  Columbia  Seminary).  The  synods  have  entered  into 
agreement  with  each  other  to  govern  by  and  through  the 
Board  of  Directors.  The  synods  do  not  control  imme-di- 
ately,  but  mediately  through  the  board.  This  Constitu- 
tion is  not  a  set  of  rules  so  much  as  a  bill  of  rights.     The 


472  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Synod  has  its  rights,  the  board  theirs,  Dr.  Woodrow  his> 
For  example,  who  elects  a  professor  ?    Not  the  Synod,  but 
the  board.    After  the  election  by  the  board,  the  Synod  can 
approve  or  disapi)rove.     The  veto  belongs  to  the  Synod. 
But  if  the  Synod,  for  any  cause,  does  not  speak,  the  elec- 
tion becomes  valid  without  any  act  on  its  part.     Has  the 
professor  no  rights  ?    Is  he  to  be  stopped  by  resolutions  of 
the  Synod  ?  The  board  has  the  right  to  remove  a  professor 
when  he  is  found  unfaithful  or  incompetent  (see  Art.  11^ 
page  5).     The  board  may  suspend  him  until  fully  'tried' 
(ibid),  and  report  their  action  to  the  synods.     Professor 
"Woodrow  has  rights  ;   sacred  rights.    May  God  grant  that 
there  will  be  Presbyterians  found  still  who  will  give  a 
man  his  rights.     The  only  method  of  proceeding  legally 
in  the  board  was  for  the  objectors  to  table  charges  of  'un- 
faithfuhiess'  or  'incompetency.'     Then  there  would  have 
been  a  fair  trial  with  full  discussion,  and  the  Synod  would 
have  had  the  review  of  a  case.     The  board  has  the  right 
to  try  and  remove  a  professor,  and  that  excludes  the  right 
of  the  Synod  to  do  so.     The  Synod  cannot  do  what  by  the 
Constitution  is  expressly  assigned  to  another  body — 'ex- 
pressio  unius  est  exclusio  alterius/     This  is  the  univer- 
sally recognized  rule  of  law.     Are  you  going  to  raise  a 
hurrah !   and  try  to  sweep  a  man  out  of  his  place  by 
clamor  ?     Is  that  Presbyterianism  ?    No !     A  man  is  not 
condemned  till  tried.     So  speaks  this  Constitution.     The 
Synod,  by  adopting  the  minority  report,  would  travel  far 
out  of  that  path  which  is  defined  in  the  law.     The  sup- 
posed right  of  the  Synod  to  say  to  a  professor,  'Your  views 
do  not  contradict  the  Bible  as  interpreted  in  these  stand- 
ards, but  they  do  not  suit  us,'  is  the  same  as  saying,  'Or- 
thodoxy   is    my    doxy    and    heterodoxy    is    your    doxy.' 
[Laughter.]     The  only  way  to  stop  a  professor  is  to  re- 
move him  from  office  either  for  'unfaithfulness'  or  'in- 
competency' after  a  fair  trial.    These  are  the  legal  limits. 
The  pledge  or  vow  given  by  each  professor  wlien  inaugu- 
rated binds  him  not  to  contradict  the  doctrines  of  the 
standards  of  the  church.     The  giving  of  this  limit  is  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  tests.     His  teaching  is  limited  only 
by  that  formula.     I  challenge  the  riglit  of  the  Synod  to 
reverse  the  action  of  the  board  and  pr(»hil)it  hi>^  toaehing. 


CONTROVERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  473 

It  is  asked,  'Do  not  these  synods  control  the  Seminary  V 
I  reply  by  asking,  does  not  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ffive  some  control  in  and  over  the  States  to  the 
Federal  government  ?  Bnt  is  not  our  bitter  complaint 
jnst  this  that  the  majority  have  overridden  these  limits 
and  then  said,  'We  have  the  power  to  work  our  pleasure !' 
So  you  of  the  Synod  can  do  it  by  trampling  under  your 
feet  this  Constitution  just  as  they  suspend  and  disregard 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  for  us  by  force  of  num- 
bers. You  can,  but  I  do  not  believe  you  will,  do  such  in- 
justice.   Moderator,  to  the  law  we  must  go. 

"T  trust  the  Synod  will  excuse  a  few  personal  allusions. 
There  is  a  question  in  church  polity  as  to  the  exact  rela- 
tions of  church  and  state.  Being  brought  up  in  our  con- 
ference, we,  the  professors,  were  found  to  differ  among 
ourselves.  Let  me  now  be  told  what  are  the  'accepted  in- 
terpretations V  I  do  not  know.  As  to  the  will,  the  views 
of  the  professor  of  Theology  are  contrary  to  those  of  Ed- 
wards, which  are  generally  accepted  by  the  ministry. 
ThornwelFs  latest  opinions  were  also  opposed  to  Edwards, 
but  the  professor  who  came  in  between  Dr.  Thornwell  and 
Dr.  Girardeau  was,  I  believe,  with  Edwards.  N'ow,  shall 
Synod  prevent  the  present  professor  of  Theology  from 
teaching  what  is  opposed  to  the  Edwardean  or  'received' 
view  ?  There  are  differences  among  us  as  to  the  deacon's 
functions.  Of  these  we  have  at  least  three  views  in  the 
faculty.  Which  of  these  is  the  'accepted  interpretation'  ? 
As  to  the  call  to  the  ministry,  we  have  different  opinions 
Avhen  that  comes  up  for  discussion.  Each  professor  gives 
his  own  view,  and  leaves  the  students  to  select  between 
them. 

''This  Synod  must  not  evade  the  question :  Is  a  professor 
forbidden  to  vary  from  received  interpretations  of  the 
church  ? 

'T  criticise  the  whole  proceeding.  It  has  been  'hush,' 
'I  am  afraid  of  evolution.'  'I  would  not  say  it  contra- 
dicts the  Bible  ;'  but  'silence  !  silence  !'  'Keep  silence,  O 
earth!'  If  the  earth  would  keep  silence  and  obey  the 
Synod,  very  well.    But  the  earth  will  not  keep  silence. 

''Look  at  the  position  in  which  you  place  your  profes- 
sor.    These  young  men  hear  about  this  terrible  evolution. 


474  AIY  LIP'E  AND  TIMES. 

They  occasionally  see  a  book  or  magazine.  They  come  to 
the  Seminary  in  great  doubt,  having  heard  of  evolution  in 
college.  This  Synod,  sitting  as  a  scientific  association, 
undertakes,  in  the  far  sweep  of  its  knowledge,  to  say, 
'Though  every  scientific  man  believes  it,  yet  we  say  it  is 
an  ^mVerified  hypothesis.'  ■  'Hear,  O  earth,'  but  she  will 
not  keep  silence.  There  was  a  time  when  a  majority  of 
the  Christian  world,  great  as  that  of  the  Synods  of  Ken- 
tucky and  Nashville,  believed  that  everything  was  made 
in  six  natural  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  'The  geo- 
logical hypothesis  is  not  based  on  facts,'  they  said.  But 
there  were  facts,  and  many  of  them  too.  Geologists 
'rooted  down'  and  found  out  that  all  was  not  made  in  six 
ordinary  days.  If  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  had  had 
such  geologists  before  them,  they  would  perhaps  have 
been  tempted  to  shut  their  mouths.  That  was  an  'accepted 
interpretation.'  Perhaps  the  mend^ers  of  the  church  to- 
day mostly  hold  to  the  'accepted  interpretation'  of  that 
day,  and,  on  the  principle  of  the  minority,  would  sweep 
the  ministry  out  of  existence  for  not  believing  it.  'Away 
with  the  geologist !  Let  him  go  into  that  bottomless  abyss 
that  he  has  been  rooting  at,'  was  the  cry.  Xow  the  church 
has  to  cry  in  the  presence  of  this  impertinent  science, 
'Peccavi!'  Then  consider  the  deluge  controversy.  The 
'accepted  interpretation'  required  a  universal  deluge. 
There  was  no  apparent  need  of  one,  since  the  only  purpose 
was  to  destroy  sinful  man,  not  yet  spread  abroad  over  all 
the  globe.  But  the  language !  the  language  demanded 
universality. 

"Recall  the  controversy  on  the  'vowel  points'  in  He- 
brew. There  was  a  dreadful  controversy  over  their  in- 
spiration. The  Buxtorfs,  with  all  their  learning,  erred. 
But  at  last  the  truth  ]u-evailed :  they  were  devised  by  the 
iminspired  scribes.     The  accepted  view  was  wrong. 

"Recall  the  'purist  controversy.'  'The  N^ew  Testa- 
ment Greek,'  so  men  said,  'must  be  pure — purer  than  that 
of  Demosthenes  or  Plato.'  This  view  was  'accepted'  by 
most,  but  it  came  to  naught.  Is  the  church  of  God  never 
to  learn  anything  bv  experience  ?  Is  she  ever  to  hurl  her- 
self against  things  in  which  she  has  no  interest  ?  The  eyes 
of  the  world  are  upon  you.     The  ears  of  science  are  listen- 


COKTEOVEESIES    OF   SCIEIn'CE.  475 

ing.  Are  we  to  yield  to  clamor  ?  Outside  clamor  ?  The 
very  loudness  of  the  clamor  calls  upon  us  to  act  like  Pres- 
byterians— to  stick  to  the  law!  Do  not,  by  any  act  of 
jours,  by  implication  pass  condemnation  upon  a  man 
without  giving  him  a  trial.  I  beg  you,  not  because  I  am 
a  personal  friend  of  Dr.  Woodrow,  but  because  I  am  here 
as  a  presbyter.  I  beg  you  because  of  your  plighted  faith 
to  this  Constitution.  Yield  not  to  outside  pressure ;  yield 
not  to  fear  of  results,  but  stick  to  the  law.  If  you  jump 
to  a  conclusion  virtually  condemning  Dr.  Woodrow,  from 
which  you  must  retreat,  then  this  noble  Seminary,  so  dear 
to  us,  will  trail  the  blue  banner  of  her  Presbyterianism, 
which  has  long  floated  over  her,  in  the  presence  of  science. 
And  we  will  strike  our  standard,  leave  our  guns,  and  con- 
fess that  we  are  whipped  on  our  o^\^l  ground." 

Professor  H.  E.  Shepherd:  "Is  evolution  in  its  re- 
stricted sense,  as  believed  by  Dr.  Woodrow,  taught  as  a 
dogma  and  impressed  on  the  minds  of  students,  or  is  it 
simply  described  in  its  history  and  characteristics  ?  That 
is  a  very  important  question. 

"Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  controversy,  I 
hope  that  no  injury  may  be  done  to  the  teaching  of  science 
in  the  Seminary.  If  there  is  anything  that  should  be 
most  desired  it  is  a  thorough  equipment  in  this  very  direc- 
tion, in  view  of  the  immense  activity  and  energy  of  other 
<?ountries  in  this  channel  of  development.  It  behooves  us 
not  to  be  found  in  the  false  attitude  of  hostility  to  the  ad- 
vance of  scientific  investigation.  It  is  needed  in  the 
ohurch,  and  I  have  known  too  many  cases  in  which  min- 
isters of  the  gospel  were  routed  in  true  Waterloo  style  by 
reason  of  their  ignorance  of  scientific  inquiry.  In  gen- 
eral, I  would  say  that  nothing  which  has  not  been  proved, 
or  which  is  not  capable  of  proof,  should  be  taught  in  a 
theological  seminary.  In  the  teaching  of  philology  a 
professor  cannot  lay  down  a  dogmatic  and  conventional 
theory  and  demand  its  acceptance  by  his  students.  Fran- 
cis Bacon  did  not  accept  the  scheme  of  the  iiniverse  as  laid 
down  by  Copernicus,  yet  in  his  Novum  Organon  he  laid 
the  foundation  of  our  system  of  inductive  philosophy. 
Milton  did  not  accept  the  true  theory  of  the  solar  system, 
a  fact  which  is  shown  bv  the  evidences  of  his  adherence 


476  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

to  the  Ptolemaic  system  in  his  Paradise  Lost.  And  not 
only  in  Milton's  poetry,  but  the  whole  of  our  poetic  lit- 
erature np  to  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century.  We 
do  not  now  know  that  we  can  teach  the  Copernican  system 
of  astronomy  as  anything  absolute  and  final,  because  its 
teachings  may  be  eventually  and  completely  reversed. 
And  so  with  the  undulatory  theory  of  light,  most  gen- 
erally accepted,  but  which  is  being  most  vigorously  as- 
sailed by  Lord  Brougham." 

W.  A.  Clark,  Esq. :  "If  it  is  true,  as  has  been  stated, 
that  evolution  is  a  threatening  and  dangerous  thing,  there 
is  all  the  more  reason  for  ministers  of  God  to  understand 
it  fully  and  resist  it  or  ward  off  its  blows  from  the  church. 
The  question  is  narrowed  down  to  the  charge  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  was  culpable  in  that  he  expressed  the  opinion 
that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  was  probably  true.  The 
minority  seems  to  act  on  the  theory  that  Dr.  Woodrow 
inculcates  evolution  with  zeal,  and  puts  his  students  into 
the  world  enthusiastic  evolutionists.  The  minority  report 
charges  that  Dr.  Woodrow,  while  free  of  heresy  or  any 
opposition  to  the  word  of  God,  is  to  be  censured  because 
of  his  opposition  to  the  received  interpretation  of  that 
word  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

"^T  am  not  able  to  meet  the  charge  that  Dr.  Woodrow's 
teacliing  is  contrary  to  the  received  interpretation,  because 
neither  I,  nor  anybody  else,  knows  what  the  received  inter- 
pretations are.  The  theory  of  the  literal  creation  of  the 
earth  in  six  natural  days  has  been  decided  long  ago.  Xo- 
body  denies  now  that  the  universe  was  developed  from 
chaos  by  the  slow  operation  of  millions  of  years, — that 
evolution  is  now  an  accepted  fact ;  yet  the  minority  report 
condemns  even  the  doctrine  of  the  evolution  of  the  earth. 

'"As  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  taken  directly  from 
the  Bible,  no  hypothesis  that  fails  to  contradict  the  Bible 
can  possibly  contradict  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Dr. 
Woodrow  has  either  taught  doctrines  contradictory  of 
scripture,  and  is  therefore  guilty  of  heresy,  or  he  has  not 
contradicted  the  Confession  or  any  ))art  of  it.  Why  are 
we  to  be  relieved  from  the  literal  interpretation  of  the 
creation  of  the  earth  and  held  by  an  iron  gras])  to  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  creation  of  man  ?     Unless  it 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  477 

can  be  proved  that  the  word  'dust,'  in  the  account  of  the 
creation  of  man,  can  mean  nothing  but  dust,  everybody 
has  the  right  to  his  individual  judgment  of  its  meaning 
and  signiiication.  Dr.  Woodrow's  system  of  evolution  is 
the  product  of  his  own  thought  and  study  and  investiga- 
tion. It  is  not  the  evolution  of  Darwin.  Dr.  Woodrow 
believes  that  in  tlie  process  of  evolution  every  link,  from 
the  lowest  germ  to  the  highest  type,  was  the  work  of  God. 
Why  cannot  we  worship  and  glorify  God  for  the  wisdom 
and  mercy  in  developing  man  link  by  link  as  well  as  we 
can  wonder  at  the  sudden  creation  of  man  from  the  dead 
earth  ?    One  process  is  as  miraculous  as  the  other." 

Mr.  Clark  defended  the  majority  report.  There  could 
be  no  question  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  was  extra- 
scriptural,  as  the  report  said  it  was.  It  was  an  hypothesis 
built  lipon  science  entirely  unconnected  with  scripture, 
and  Synod  had  no  right  to  go  beyond  its  sphere  of  church 
work  and  denounce  a  purely  scientific  theory  as  true  or 
false.  Mr.  Clark  read  from  the  work  of  Dr.  Hodge  the 
declaration  that  evolution,  and  in  the  same  shape  as  be- 
lieved by  Dr.  Woodrow,  could  only  be  regarded  with  the 
most  friendly  interest. 

Eev.  E.  A.  Webb :  "  I  agree  with  Dr.  Adger  that  the 
church,  and  not  Dr.  Woodrow,  is  on  trial.  The  minority 
report  was  framed  carefully  to  draw  a  distinction  between 
I)r.  Woodrow  and  Dr.  Woodrow's  teachings.  The  minor- 
ity only  ask  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  as  published  be 
considered.  It  has  been  said  that  the  adoption  of  tlie 
minority  report  will  elicit  shouts  of  triumph  from  the 
camp  of  infidelity.  The  adoption  of  the  majority  report 
will  elicit  a  universal  wail  from  the  camp  of  the  saints. 
The  charge  that  the  minority  has  sought  to  stamp  science 
with  infamy  is  false.  The  war  cry  of  the  supporters  of 
the  majority  is  'Eemember  Galileo.'  They  forget  that 
science  tried,  condemned,  and  punished  Galileo.  Science 
led  the  church  to  adopt  the  Ptolemaic  theory,  and  induced 
her  to  oppose  and  persecute  the  truth.  The  majority  is 
endeavoring  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  commit  the  church 
to  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  modified,  expounded,  and 
inculcated  in  Dr.  Woodrow's  address.  It  is  claimed  that 
the  question  of  evolution  is  extra-scriptural,  and  that  the 


478  MY  LIFE  AiVD  TIMES. 

clinrcli  ha?  no  more  to  do  witli  it  than  slio  has  witli  a 
p]-oblein  of  Enelid.  But  the  Bible  and  science  both  talk 
of  the  creation  of  man.  They  intersect  each  other  there, 
and  contradict  each  other.  The  majority  report  is  start- 
ling, inasmnch  as  it  looks  into  the  futnre  and  endeavors  to 
guard  against  the  introduction  of  the  hypothesis  of  evolu- 
tion into  the  (confession  of  Faith,  by  declaring  that  it  can 
never  become  part  of  that  Confession.  But  if  it  is  worthy 
to  be  taught  in  the  Seminary  under  the  authority  and 
Avitli  the  sanction  of  Synod,  it  is  worthy  of  incorporation 
into  the  Confession  of  Faith.  The  resolution  in  the  ma- 
jority report,  that  the  theory  of  evolution  cannot  be  taught 
as  an  article  of  faith,  is  a  dodging  of  the  question.  Dr> 
Woodrow  is  not  a  private  person ;  he  does  not  speak  on 
his  own  responsibility.  With  authority  of  the  chijrch  be^ 
hind  him,  he  reviews  before  his  classes  the  arguments  for 
and  against  evolution,  and  declares  that  he  believes  it  to 
be  probably  true.  Is  that  not  teaching  it  and  inculcating 
it  ?  The  chair  calls  for  the  teaching  of  the  connection  be- 
tween scripture  and  science.  The  majority  report  pro- 
claims that  there  is  no  connection — that  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  is  entirely  extra-scriptural.  There  can  be  no 
connection  between  parallel  lines. 

"I  am  not  the  author  of  the  minority  report.*  Young 
as  I  am,  I  would  not  attempt  to  guide  the  action  of  a  body 
like  Synod.  I  simply  drew  up  the  minority  report- 
Blackstone  defines  heresy  as  a  denial  of  some  essential 
truth  or  doctrine  of  Christianity,  publicly  avowed  and 
obstinately  maintained." 

Rev.  Dr.  Hemphill  inquired  whether  the  speaker  meant 
to  say  that  if  Synod  adopted  the  minority  report,  it  would 
adopt  Webster's  or  Blackstone's  definition  of  heresy. 

Mr.  Webb  said  he  intended  that  Synod  should  adopt  a 
correct  definition. 

Dr.  Hemphill  said  there  was  a  Presbyterian  definition 
of  heresy. 

Mr.  Webb  continued :  "1  would  never  vote  for  any 
action  that  would  accuse  Dr.  Woodrow  of  heresy.     There 

*  Dr.  Girardeau  stated  that,  at  Mr.  Webb's  request,  he  had  giveo 
him  the  notes  to  be  used  as  the  basis  of  the  minority  report. 


COXTROYERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  479 

is  no  purpose  to  charge  him  with  heresy.  If  every  man 
who  differs  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  to  be  accused 
of  heresy,  a  large  proportion  of  the  church  membership 
wouhl  be  under  ban.  The  riiinority  denies  that  Dr.  Wood- 
row  is  guilty  of  heresy  or  infidelity.  They  charge  that  he 
teaches  doctrines  contradictory  of  the  Bible  as  interpreted 
by  Presbyterian  standards  and  received  by  Presbyterians. 
The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  not  extra-scriptural ;  it  is 
contra-scriptural.  The  word  'dust'  is  used  in  the  Bible 
one  hundred  and  seven  times.  In  ninety-eight  of  them  it 
is  used  as  inorganic  dust.  The  passage  'who  can  count 
the  dust  of  Jacob'  might  be  regarded  as  referring  to  or- 
ganic beino's,  but  examination  shows  that  it  refers  en- 
tirely  to  the  immense  numbers  of  his  descendants.  In 
two  other  instances  it  is  used  to  express  humility  and 
lowliness.  In  three  others  it  is  used  as  describing  the 
food  of  serpents,  and  is  therefore  regarded  as  meaning 
flesh  and  blood.  But  distinguished  commentators  have 
decided  that  it  can  be  construed  as  meaning  that  the  ser- 
pent eats  dust  upon  his  food.  I  believe,  however,  that  the 
expression  'dust'  is  a  figurative  one,  applying  to  the  ex- 
treme humbling  of  the  devil  typified  by  the  serpent.  Of 
the  remaining  three  instances  in  which  'dust'  occurs,  two 
are  in  Genesis  and  one  in  Ecclesiastes,  and  all  obviously 
refer  to  inorganic  materials.  In  one  hundred  and  four 
cases  'dust'  is  clearly  meant  to  express  inorganic  material, 
and  in  the  other  three  the  probability  is  the  same  way. 
Applying  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation,  the  pre- 
ponderance of  use  and  general  accejitation,  the  conclusion 
is  inevitable  that  'dust'  in  the  Bible  means  inorganic 
material,  and  that  Adam  was  literally  made  of  inorganic 
dust,  instead  of  being  evolved  from  the  loins  of  a  brute. 

"Every  figure  of  speech  must  have  some  basis  of  re- 
ality. Dr.  Woodrow  in  his  address  has  alluded  to  dust  as 
probably  a  figure  of  speech.  According  to  that,  the  real 
meaning  of  'dust  thou  art  and  to  dust  thou  shalt  return' 
is  'of  organic  matter  art  thou  composed,  and  into  organio 
matter  thou  shalt  be  decomposed.'  The  grave  tells  us  how 
we  go,  and  proves  to  us  that  we  must  return  to  inorganic 
dust.  I  contend  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  not  guilty  of  heresy, 
but  that  he  has  tauffht  doctrine  relativelv  contradictorv 


480  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

of  scripture — contradictory  of  the  scripture  received  by 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  minority  report  steers 
clear  of  the  charge  of  heresy  and  the  allegation  of  infi- 
delity. It  directs  the  prohibition  of  further  teaching  of 
doctrines  believed  to  be  contradictory  of  the  received  in- 
terpretation of  God's  word." 

Mr.  Webb  closed  with  a  passionate  exhortation  to  synod 
not  to  sacrifice  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  church  and 
the  life  of  the  Seminary  for  the  sake  of  an  unverified  hy- 
pothesis, a  shadowy,  uncertain  supposition. 

I  proceed  now  to  report  the  part  taken  in  this  debate  by 
Eev.  John  L.  Girardeau,  D.  D.  None  of  the  speeches  on 
that  occasion  were  very  accurately  reported.  This  applies 
specially  to  the  one  delivered  by  my  old  friend.  He  sub- 
sequently published  a  pamphlet  of  thirty-five  pages,  en- 
titled ''The  Substance  of  Two  Speeches  on  the  Teaching 
of  Evolution  in  Columbia  Theological  Seminary.  De- 
livered in  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at  Greenville, 
S.  C,  October,  1884."  In  his  introduction  to  this  pam- 
phlet he  states:  "The  greater  part  of  the  ensuing  re- 
marks is  a  reproduction  vcrhatim  of  what  was  spoken 
from  full  notes  on  the  floor  of  the  Synod.  The  same  verbal 
accuracy  is  not  vouched  for  in  regard  to  the  whole  of 
them."  He  proceeds  to  aver  that  there  is  no  question  be- 
fore this  Synod  of  heresy  on  Dr.  Woodrow's  part,  and  if 
there  were  such  a  charge,  he,  as  one  member  of  the  Synod, 
would  join  in  the  vindication  of  the  Professor.  He  re- 
peated, in  the  second  place,  that  in  his  opinion  there  was 
no  ground  on  which  to  base  such  a  charge  against  Dr. 
Woodrow.  He  goes  on  at  considerable  length  to  declare 
his  confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  belief  in 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  and  in  all  the 
vital  doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic  system. 

On  page  6,  after  all  the  introductory  matter,  Dr.  Gir- 
ardeau expresses  himself  thus:  "The  question  which  is 
before  the  Synod  is  whether  it  will  approve  or  disapprove 
the  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  and,  by  implication, 
the  inculcation  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  of  evolution 
in  the  Theological  Seininary." 

To  the  first  portion  of  this  double  question,  he  then 
devotes  some  eight  or  nine  pages  of  his  pamphlet.     And 


CONTEOVERSIES   OF   SCIENCE.  481 

on  page  15,  T  find  him  saying,  "The  question  which  in  my 
judgment  is  really  before  the  Synod  is  in  regard  to  the 
relation  between  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  and  the  Bible 
as  our  church  interprets  it."  I  shall,  therefore,  pass  over 
altogether,  as  not  necessary  to  this  history  of  the  evolution 
controversy,  all  that  he  says  on  the  first  branch  of  the 
question,  and  I  proceed  to  report  his  speech  as  it  related 
only  to  the  second  branch. 

Dr.  Girardeau  said  that  in  his  judgment  the  question 
really  before  the  Synod  was  in  regard  to  the  relation  be- 
tween Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  and  the  Bible  as  our 
church  interprets  it,  between  this  scientific  view  and  our 
Bible,  the  Bible  as  it  reads  to  us.  This  is  our  court  of 
last  resort,  our  ultimate  standard  of  judgment ;  and,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  must  be.  This  being,  as  he  appre- 
hended it,  the  state  of  the  question,  the  first  proposition 
which  he  would  lay  down  for  the  Synod's  consideration 
was :  ''A  scientific  hypothesis  wdiich  has  not  been  proved 
so  as  to  have  become  an  established  theory  or  law,  and 
which  is  contrary  to  our  church's  interpretation  of  the 
Bible,  and  to  her  prevailing  and  recognized  views,  ought 
not  to  be  inculcated  and  maintained  in  our  theological 
seminaries." 

He  argued  this  from  the  nature  and  design  of  a  theo- 
logical school.  It  is  established  and  supported  by  the 
church.  It  is  designed  to  teach  what  the  church  holds  and 
l>elieves.  For  it  to  teach  the  contrary  is  to  violate  its  very 
nature  and  end.  And  in  the  event  of  a  view  opposed  to 
her  own  being  supported  by  great  talents  and  acquire- 
ments, and  as  in  the  case  of  scientific  hypotheses,  beyond 
■effective  resistance  by  the  other  chairs,  she  actually  makes 
arrangements  for  the  overthrow  of  her  own  views. 

The  speaker  proceeds  to  argue  that  neither  Hebrew  and 
Greek  nor  rhetoric,  metaphysics,  moral  philosophy  nor 
science,  are  to  be  taught  there  for  their  own  sakes,  but 
always  and  only  as  a  means  to  an  end,  and  that  end  was 
to  facilitate  the  mastery  of  theology,  and  to  vindicate  the 
scriptures  against  the  assaults  of  infidelity.  And  fur- 
ther, our  Seminary  was  not  designed  simply  to  teach  the 
-scriptures.  Every  theological  seminary  of  every  evangel- 
ical church  is  designed  to  do  this.     There  must  be  some- 


482  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIDIES. 

thing  distinctive  to  mark  off  ours  from  theirs,  some  spe- 
cific difference;  what  is  it?  This:  onrs  was  designed  tO' 
teach  the  scriptnres  as  interpreted  hy  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  especially  by  the  Soutliea-n  Presbyterian 
Church.     This  is  too  plain  to  need  argument. 

An  unproved  hypothesis  ought  not  to  be  taught  in  a 
theological  seminary,  not  only  because  of  the  reasons  al- 
ready urged,  but  because  such  an  hypothesis  may  never  be 
verified.  In  that  event  the  church  would  be  convicted  of 
having  taught  scientific  error.  She  would  be  obliged  to 
retreat  from  her  position  and  confess  her  sin.  What  a 
wretched  course  it  would  be  for  the  church  to  surrender 
her  views  at  the  demand  of  unverified  hypotheses !  Who 
would  confide  in  her  stability  ?  Who  would  not  pronounce 
her  fickle? 

The  speaker  went  on  to  instance  cases  in  which  the 
church  had  held  on  to  her  original  interpretation  of  scrip- 
ture in  the  face  of  opposing  scientific  hypotheses,  and  Avas 
subsequently  acknowledged  to  be  right  by  the  weight  of 
scientific  evidence  itself.  One  was  the  hypothesis  of  the 
specific  diversity  of  the  human  race,  as  opposed  to  the 
church's  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  race ;  another  was 
the  hypothesis  of  the  extreme  antiquity  of  man  as  opposed 
to  the  church's  view  of  the  biblical  chronology;  another 
was  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation ;  but  Hux- 
ley himself  had  declared  that  Pasteur  gave  it  its  finishing 
stroke.  The  church  too  has  held  her  ground  against  the 
hypothesis  of  the  original  diversity  of  languages  in  favor 
of  her  doctrine  of  their  original  unity.  The  application 
is  plain  to  the  hypothesis  now  under  consideration.  It 
cannot  be  left  to  scientific  men  to  determine  what  is  or  is 
not  to  be  taught  in  our  theological  seminaries,  nor  can  it 
be  left  to  any  professor.  Who  are  to  determine  this  all- 
important  question  ?  Proximately  the  Board  of  Direc- 
tors, but  only  proximately ;  ultimately  the  associated 
synods.  They  have  the  power  to  make  the  constitution  of 
the  seminary,  and  therefore  to  say  what  is  or  is  not  to  be 
taught  in  its  chairs. 

The  speaker  next  ytroceeded  to  insist  that  admitting  the 
other  professors  in  the  Seminary  did  discuss  before  their 
students  unverified  hypotheses,  yet  none  of  these  were- 


CONTKOVEESIES    OF   SCIENCE.  -iSS^ 

siTch  as  the  church  condemned.  The  church  had  con- 
demned the  inculcation  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  unverified  hy- 
pothesis. Hence  it  was  wrong  for  it  to  be  inculcated.  He 
admitted  that  so  long  as  Dr.  Woodrow  taught  evolution 
expositorily  without  expressing  any  opinion  in  its  favor, 
he  taught,  as  the  speaker  conceived,  nothing  contradic- 
tory to  the  Bible.  But  now  when  he  announces  that  he 
holds  it  as  probably  true,  under  limitations,  the  church 
says,  "Your  view  contradicts  my  interpretation  of  the- 
Bible;  and  as  my  interpretation  of  the  Bible  is  the  Bible 
to  me,  your  view  contradicts  the  Bible."  The  relation, 
then,  between  his  hypothesis  and  the  Bible  is,  in  the 
church's  judgment,  not  that  simply  of  non-contradiction. 
The  analogy  which  is  alleged  to  exist  between  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  hypothesis  of  evolution  and  the  matters  specified  as 
taught  by  the  professors  of  Biblical  Literature,  Churcb 
History  and  Rhetoric,  utterly  breaks  down. 

"Yet,"  said  the  speaker,  "it  may  be  contended  that  the- 
professor  of  Didactic  and  Polemic  Theology  positively 
inculcates  metaphysical  hypotheses  which  are  extra- 
scriptural,  and  that  therefore  the  analogy  does  hold  be- 
tween his  case  and  that  of  the  Perkins  Professor.  He  ad- 
mitted that  he  taught  hypotheses  which  are  not  to  be- 
found  stated  in  scientific  form  in  the  scriptures.  Between 
them  and  the  statements  of  the  Bible  there  is  not  the  har- 
mony of  identity.  But  the  instructor  believed  that  be- 
tween them  and  the  Bible  there  is  the  harmony  of  non- 
contradiction. Further  than  this,  it  is  believed  that  be- 
tween them  and  the  church's  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
there  is  harmony,  the  harmony  of  non-contradictory  state- 
ments. To  speak  in  plain  language,  it  is  believed  that 
they  are  perfectly  consistent  and  harmonious  with  the- 
Bible  as  the  church  understands  and  teaches  it.  And  fur- 
ther still,  he  would  say  that  they  are  inculcated  with  the- 
end  in  view,  at  least  partly  and  chiefly,  of  evincing  the- 
harmony  between  them  and  our  church's  interpretation 
of  the  Bible.  The  connection  between  metaphysical 
science  and  revelation  is  so  taught  as  to  make  the  former 
a  defender  of  the  latter,  its  vindicator  against  the  assaults 
of  a  sceptical  philosophy.  In  a  word,  metaphysical  teach- 
ings are  so  used  as  not  to  make  it  necessary  to  adjust  the- 


484  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

church's  interpretation  of  the  Bible  to  them,  but  bv  them 
to  ehicidate  and  strengthen  that  interpretation. 

'^I^ow,  natural  science  may  be  employed  in  the  same 
way,  and  the  analogy  would  then  hold  between  the  two 
■chairs.  The  true  question  is,  whether  the  actual  attitude 
of  the  two  chairs  is  alike ;  whether  the  real  existing  pos- 
ture of  the  Perkins  chair  towards  the  Bible  as  interpreted 
by  our  church  is  the  real  existing  posture  of  the  metaphys- 
ical chair  towards  the  same  standard.  That  being  the 
true  state  of  the  question,  no  unprejudiced  mind  can  hes- 
itate as  to  the  decision.  In  the  respects  mentioned,  they 
are  not  alike — the  analogy  practically  fails." 

The  speaker  next  referred  to  its  having  been  argued 
that  not  only  the  seminary  professors  diifered  from  each 
■other,  but  that  there  are  parties  in  our  church  differing 
■on  certain  points  as  much  from  each  other  as  Dr.  Wood- 
row  and  his  opponents,  and  yet  the  church  tolerates  these 
differences,  and  these  different  views  are  publicly  and 
freely  set  forth.  These  differences  relate,  for  example, 
to  predestination  and  the  will,  to  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  guilt,  to  the  call  to  the  ministry,  etc.  In  reference 
to  these  matters,  it  is  argued,  all  are  substantially  agreed, 
though,  upon  the  question  of  mode,  discrepancies  occur. 
So,  in  this  pairticular  case  before  us,  all  are  agreed  in  re- 
gard to  the  fact  of  creation,  but  the  difference  arises  with 
reference  to  the  mode,  and  that  ought  to  be  permissible 
as  it  is  in  the  other  cases. 

"This  argument,"  said  Dr.  Girardeau,  "has  not  even 
the  air  of  plausibility.  One  or  two  plain  considerations 
will  effectually  destroy  the  analogy  upon  which  it  is 
"based,  and  so  subvert  it  along  with  its  foundation. 

"First,  the  parties  who  differ  upon  the  questions  in- 
stanced— predestination,  the  will,  imputation,  the  call  to 
the  ministry,  etc. — profess  to  derive  the  proofs  of  their 
respective  positions  from  the  scriptures ;  both  sides  ap- 
peal to  them  for  support.  But  those  who  maintain  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution  profess  to  derive  the  reasons  in  its 
favor  from  science,  while  the  op])onents  of  evolution  get 
their  argument  from  the  Bible  as  well  as  from  science. 
The  difference  between  the  cases  is  a  mighty  one.  There 
is  no  analoffv  between  them. 


CONTROVERSIES   OF   SCIENCE.  485 

"Secondly,  both  parties  to  the  questions  instanced  ap- 
peal to  our  standards  for  proof  of  their  views.  For  proof 
of  this  scientific  hypothesis  no  appeal  to  the  standards  is 
possible.    Here  is  another  mighty  difference. 

"Thirdly,  none  of  the  parties  to  the  questions  specified 
would  maintain  views  which  are  plainly  contrary  to  the 
standards.  If  this  scientific  hypothesis  can  be  proved  to 
be  plainly  contrary  to  the  standards,  it  would  not  stand 
upon  the  same  footing-  with  the  subjects  upon  wdiich  dif- 
ference of  teaching  is  allowable.  It  would  be  in  another 
and  peculiar  category." 

As  the  teaching  of  the  professor  of  Systematic  The- 
ology in  our  Seminary  upon  the  subject  of  the  will  was 
involved  in  this  allegation,  the  Synod  would,  he  trusted, 
indulge  him  in  a  few  special  remarks  about  that  matter. 
''The  view  taught  by  that  professor  is  neither  extra-scrip- 
tural nor  extra-confessional.  It  confesses  to  be  both  scrip- 
tural and  confessional.  It  claims  to  derive  its  proofs 
from  the  Bible,  from  the  doctrine  of  Calvin,  from  the 
symbols  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  especially  from 
the  standards  of  our  own  church.  Whether  or  not  these 
claims  have  been  made  good,  they  have  been  made.  Such 
is  the  method  of  proof,  as  any  one  may  satisfy  himself 
who  will  consult  the  Professor's  published  exposition  of 
his  views  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review.  Xow,  to 
say  that  the  teaching  of  that  view  is  on  the  same  footing 
Avitli  the  teaching  of  the  Perkins  Professor's  view  of  evo- 
lution, as  he  now  holds  it,  is  simply  to  throw  facts  out  of 
account. 

"I  maintain,"  said  the  speaker,  "that  a  theological 
seminary  is  not  the  place,  and  instruction  in  its  halls  not 
the  means,  to  create  sentiments  adverse  to  any  objection- 
able features  of  our  doctrinal  standards,  or  to  attempt 
the  inauguration  of  measures  looking  to  their  elimination 
from  them.  There  are  other  relations  sustained  by  theo- 
logical professors,  and  other  means  accessible  to  them, 
through  Avhich  they  may  legitimately  exert  their  influ- 
ence for  the  attainment  of  that  end.  Chiefly  there  are 
the  church  courts,  which  alone  have  the  power  to  alter  the 
standards,  and  the  professors  are  members  of  those  courts. 
There  they  may  put  forth  their  energies  to  secure  emenda- 


486  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

•tions  of  the  constitutional  law.  Theological  professors, 
.as  snch,  are  absolutely  debarred  from  opposing  by  their 
teachings  the  standards  of  the  church.  This  discussion  is 
-exceedingly  important,  contemplated  in  the  light  of  such 
a  question  as  this.  If,  as  it  would  appear,  we  have  not 
already  settled  our  rule  of  action  in  regard  to  this  weighty 
lousiness,  it  would  be  well  for  us  to  avail  ourselves  of  this 
.great  opportunity  to  accomplish  so  desirable,  so  necessary 
.an  end." 

The  speaker  next  points  out  how  the  hypothesis  in 
■question  is  opposed  to  the  standards  as  the  formal  and 
authoritative  interpretation  of  the  scriptures  by  our 
-church.  He  quotes  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  thus: 
"Tt  pleased  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  for  the 
manifestation  of  the  glory  of  his  eternal  wisdom,  power, 
:and  goodness,  in  the  beginning  to  create  or  make  of  noth- 
ing the  world  and  all  things  therein,  whether  visible  or 
invisible,  in  the  space  of  six  days,  and  all  very  good" ; 
from  the  Larger  Gatecliism  as  follows :  ''The  work  of 
'Creation  is  that  wherein  God  did,  in  the  beginning,  by 
tlie  word  of  his  power,  make  of  nothing  the  world  and  all 
things  therein  for  himself,  within  the  space  of  six  days, 
^nd  all  very  good" ;  and  from  the  Shorter  Catechism 
•these  words:  ''The  work  of  creation  is  God's  making  all 
things  of  nothing,  by  the  word  of  his  power,  in  the  space 
■of  six  days,  and  all  very  good." 

"The  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  inconsistent  with  the 
face-meaning  of  these  statements.  The  connection  be- 
tween the  words  'of  nothing'  and  the  words  'in  the  space 
of  six  days,'  'within  the  space  of  six  days,'  justifies  this 
view.  If  the  standards  had  meant  to  teach  creation  out 
cf  nothing  in  the  first  instance  only,  they  would  have  so 
connected  the  words  'of  nothing'  with  the  words  'in  the 
iDCginning'  as  definitely  to  have  conveyed  that  meaning. 
I>ut  they  also  connect  the  words  'of  nothing'  with  the 
words  'in  the  space  of  six  days,'  so  that  the  impression  is 
irresistibly  made  that  they  intended  to  teach  that  creation 
^out  of  nothing  went  along  with  the  six  days.  It  does  not 
much  nuitter  here  whether  or  not  the  standards  mean  by 
•six  days  six  literal  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  If 
they  could  be  diverted  from  their  face-meaning  and  con- 


CONTKOVERSIES   OF   SCIENCE.  487 

strued  to  mean  six  periods,  still  the  doctrine  that  creation 
out  of  nothing  proceeded  concurrently  with  those  periods, 
at  least  in  connection  with  the  beginning  of  each,  is  con- 
trary to  Dr.  Woodrow's  view  that  creation  out  of  nothing 
occurred  in  absolutely  the  first  instance  only,  and  that 
the  evolution  of  the  earth,  of  the  lower  animals,  and  prob- 
ably of  Adam's  body,  was  by  the  process  of  mediate  crea- 
tion." 

At  length,  on  page  27  of  his  pamphlet.  Dr.  Girardeau 
takes  up  the  hypothesis  of  evolution.  He  says  the  church 
holds  certain  views  concerning  the  formation  of  man's 
body  in  the  first  instance,  and  the  hypothesis  of  evolution 
under  consideration  is  contrary  to  those  views.  And  he 
proceeds  to  compare  them  after  this  fashion : 

''1.  The  hypothesis  is  that  the  dust  from  which  Adam's 
body  was  formed  was  organic  dust.  The  church's  view 
is  that  it  was  inorganic  dust — the  words  'of  the  ground' 
designating  the  sort  of  dust ;  that  the  sentence  'unto  dust 
shalt  thou  return'  and  the  inspired  words  in  Ecclesiastes, 
'Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,'  indicate 
not  animal  forms,  but  what  is  commonly  known  as  dust 
and  so  universally  called. 

"2.  The  hypothesis  is  that  Adam's  body  was  evolved  out 
of,  descended  with  modification  from,  a  long  line  of  ani- 
mal ancestry  reaching  back  for  a  protracted  period.  The 
church's  view  is  that  Adam's  body  was  formed  of  dust  by 
a  sudden,  supernatural,  constructive  act  of  God. 

"3.  The  hypothesis  is  that  Adam  as  to  his  body  was 
born  of  animal  parents.  The  church's  view  is  that  Adam 
as  to  his  body  Avas  not  born  at  all — that  he  had  no  animal 
parents. 

"4.  The  hypothesis  is  that  Adam  as  to  his  body  was  at 
first  in  an  infantile  condition,  and  grew  to*  the  stature  of 
a  man.  The  church's  view  is  that  Adam  as  to  his  body 
never  was  an  infant ;  that  he  did  not  grow,  but  was  sud- 
denly and  supernaturally  formed  in  the  full  possession  of 
mature  bodily  powers. 

"5.  The  hypothesis  is  that  the  existence  of  Adam's 
body  preceded  for  years  the  formation  of  Eve's  body. 
The  church's  view  is  that  the  formation  of  Eve's  body  fol- 
lowed closely  upon  the  formation  of  Adam's. 


488  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

"Thus  in  five  particulars  it  has  been  shown  that  the 
hypothesis  before  us  is  contrary  to  the  church's  views. 

"But  are  the  church's  views  what  they  have  now  been 
assumed  to  be  ?  and  are  they  here  prevailing  and  recog- 
nized views  ?    Of  that  I  will  proceed  to  furnish  proof. 

"It  will  not  be  denied  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  emer- 
gence of  this  controversy,  occasioned  by  the  delivery  and 
publication  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  address,  the  church's  gen- 
eral views  were  what  I  have  represented  them  to  be.  How 
has  it  been  since  '.  What  are  the  views  of  the  church 
which  have  been  developed,  brought  out  into  light  and 
maintained  during  the  discussion  which  has  occurred  ? 

"I  cite,  first,  the  faculty  of  Columbia  Seminary.  Every 
member  of  it  has  declared  his  inability  to  concur  in  Dr. 
Woodrow's  interpretation  of  scripture  so  far  as  his  hy- 
pothesis of  the  evolution  of  Adam's  body  is  concerned. 

"I  mention  next  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Columbia 
Seminary.  Every  member  of  it  has  declared  his  in- 
ability to  concur  in  Dr.  Woodrow's  view ;  the  minority  of 
course,  and  the  majority  also  in  the  paper  which  they 
adopted,  and  which  was  reported  to  the  Synod. 

''1  woidd  refer,  too,  to  the  religious  journals  of  our 
church.  Of  these  there  are  eight.  One  of  them  is  Dr. 
Woodrow's  own  paper,  and  must  therefore  be  thrown  out 
of  account.  Of  the  other  seven,  only  one  has  advocated 
Dr.  Woodrow's  view.  Here,  then,  are  six  of  the  old  es- 
tablished journals  of  the  church  which  fail  to  concur  in 
the  hypothesis  in  question.  Is  it  not  to  be  inferred  that 
they  represent  the  opinion  of  the  great  majority  of  the 
church  ? 

"]^o,  it  cannot  be  successfully  denied  that  the  over- 
whelming mass  of  the  views  of  our  church,  as  also  of  all 
evangelical  churches,  is  opposed  to  the  hypothesis  of  the 
Perkins  Professor." 

Dr.  Girardeau  proceeds  through  several  pages  to  take 
very  brief  notices  of  points  that  had  been  made  in  the 
course  of  the  previous  debate  in  favor  of  the  majority 
report,  and  gives  his  testimony  that  they  have  no  force. 
The  only  other  parts  of  his  revised  speecli  which  I  deem  it 
justly  necessary  to  publish,  are  the  following : 

"It  is  vain  to  sav,  as  has  been  said,  that  althouiih,  in 


CONTROVEKSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  489 

obedience  to  bis  convictions,  be  will  teach  tbe  probable 
truth  of  his  hypothesis,  he  will  not  urge  its  acceptance 
upon  tlie  students.  It  will  not  be  necessary  for  so  able  a 
teacher,  after  giving  his  reasons  in  favor  of  its  probable 
truth,  to  exhort  his  pupils  to  receive  it. 

''The  point,  it  is  urged  again  and  again,  the  only  point 
to  which  Dr.  Woodrow  directs  his  instructions  is  the  con- 
nection between  this  hypothesis  and  the  Bible.  -  That  is 
all.  Yes  ;  but  what  sort  of  connection  ^  Why,  this  :  the 
hypothesis  being  probably  true,  the  ordinary  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible  is  probably  untrue.  It  is  modified  by  the 
hypothesis.  It  is  to  the  teaching  in  a  seminary  of  that 
kind  of  connection  that  objection  is  made,  and  the  Synod 
is  asked  to  oppose  their  prohibition." 

Rev.  J.  L.  Martin,  M.  D.,  D.  D.,  said:  "The  one  point 
of  difference  between  the  contending  parties  is  that  one 
side  claims  that  the  Holy  Spirit  probably  meant  inorganic 
dust,  while  the  other  claims  that  the  Holy  Spirit  probably 
meant  organic  dust.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  the  Bible 
the  word  dust  often  means  inorganic  dust.  All  admit  that. 
There  is  some  dispute  as  to  whether  it  is  ever  used  to 
signify  organic  dust.  There  is  no  inspired  interpreter 
to  tell  us  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Each  reader  must  in- 
terpret the  term  in  the  light  of  its  own  context.  'Dust 
shalt  thou  eat,'  was  said  to  the  serpent.  What  did  the 
serpent  eat  ?  Organic  dust.  It  is  claimed  that  the  ser- 
pent represented  the  devil,  and  I  challenge  any  man  to 
show  that  the  devil  eats  inorganic  dust.  In  other  parts 
of  God's  word  the  term  dust,  as  I  must  believe,  means 
organic  dust  beyond  possibility  of  doubt.  'Dust  thou  art,' 
said  God  to  the  father  of  the  human  race.  What  was  he 
then?  A  rational  animal  with  an  immortal  spirit  de- 
rived from  the  breath  of  God.  Standing  before  God 
with  hands  and  feet  and  eyes  and  teeth  and  tongue,  was 
Adam  then  inorganic  dust  ?  That  is  a  part  of  God's  word, 
Ave  are  told,  it  is  heresy  to  expound.  If  Dr.  Woodrow  can- 
not expound  it  in  the  Seminary,  none  of  us  can  expound 
it  from  the  pulpit. 

"  '  Unto  dust  shalt  thou  return,'  does  not  mean  a  re- 
turn to  inorganic  dust.  When,  in  the  language  of  Job, 
after  a  man's  skin  worms  destroy  his  flesh,  he  becomes 


490  MY  LIFE  AIS^D  TIMES. 

assimilated  with  the  worms,  and  is  organic  dust.  When 
the  enemies  of  Daniel  were  cast  into  the  lion's  den  they 
did  not  become  inorganic  dust.  Job  said,  'I  also  am 
formed  out  of  the  clay/  and  in  another  place  he  asks  if  he 
shall  be  returned  to  the  dust.  Job  said  God  formed  him 
of  clay,  of  dust,  as  he  did  Adam — formed  him  of  dust 
from  the  loins  of  his  father  and  mother.  Was  that  in- 
organic dust  'i 

"So  also  Solomon  says,  'Then  shall  the  dust  return  to 
the  eaiih  as  it  ivas,  and  the  spirit  to  God  who  gave  it.' 

"I  call  attention  to  these  facts :  1.  Here  is  a  statement 
applying  to  all  men,  not  to  Adam  only.  2.  They  are  called 
'dust,'  when  the  spirit  has  departed,  that  is,  their  dead 
body,  or  corpse,  but  this  is  certainly  organic  dust — still 
organized  into  a  dead  human  body.  3.  They  are  said  to 
return  to  the  'earth,'  whence  came  Adam's  body.  4.  'As 
it  was.'  As  it  goes  into  the  earth  it  certainly  is  organic 
dust.  The  point  that  strikes  me  very  forcibly  is  that  we 
have  here  the  word  'dust'  applied  to  all  men  as  to  their 
bodies ;  yet  in  such  a  connection  as  makes  certain  that 
here  at  least  'dust'  is  organic.  So  in  Eeclesiastes  iii.  20, 
'All  go  unto  one  place ;  all  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn 
to  dust  again.'  The  context  shows  unmistakably  that  Sol- 
omon is  running  the  parallel  between  brute  and  man  as 
to  their  bodies.  He  does  not  run  a  contrast — except  in 
verse  twenty-one,  as  to  their  'spirit.'  He  says  'all'  are 
of  the  'dust' — brute  and  man ;  further  that  'all'  turn  to 
'dust'  again.  These  affirmations  are  made  of  the  'sons 
of  men'  and  of  the  'beasts'  (verse  nineteen)  equally ;  they 
apply  to  their  bodies  and  to  their  bodies  alone.  If  now 
'beast,'  according  to  Solomon,  came  'of  the  dust,'  and  yet 
no  doubt  came  by  evolution,  then,  in  the  name  of  reason, 
who  can  say  that  because  the  Bible  says  man  came  'of  the. 
dust,'  therefore  he  could  not  have  come  by  evolution? 
Evidently  we  are  shut  up  to  this :  If  'of  the  dust'  denies 
evolution  of  'man,'  equally  so  does  it  deny  evolution  of 
the  'beasts.'  Per  contra,  if  'of  the  dust'  does  not  con- 
tradict evolution  of  'beasts,'  equally  so  it  does  not  con- 
tradict evolution  of  the  'sons  of  men.'  We  know  that  all 
the  'sons  of  men'  that  Solomon  had  ever  seen  came  by 
evolution,  and  yet  he  affirms  of  them  'all  are  of  the  dust.' 


CONTROVERSIES   OF   SCIENCE.  491 

So  again,  all  the  beasts  that  Solomon  had  ever  seen  came 
by  evolution,  yet  of  them  also  he  affirms,  'All  are  of  the 
dnst.'  Manifestly,  according  to  Solomon,  there  is  no 
more  contradiction  between  dust  and  evolution  in  regard 
to  'men'  than  in  regard  to  'beasts.'  In  Ecclesiastes  xii.  1 
he  affirms,  'Creator'  of  men.  Ergo  he  saw  no  contradic- 
tion between  creation  and  evolution.  God  created  Solo- 
mon of  the  dust.  Yet  he  created  Solomon  by  natural  gen- 
eration. Isaac's  body  and  that  of  John  the  Baptist  were 
undoubtedly  of  God's  creation,  and  undoubtedly  'of  the 
dust,'  yet  in  both  these  instances  the  scripture  account 
would  lead  us  to  recognize,  if  not  a  clear  case  of  the  super- 
natural, yet  at  least  there  was  something  extraordinary 
in  their  generation.  'Evolution,'  'creation,'  'of  the  dust,' 
are  ergo  not  contradictories. 

''Dr.  Woodrow's  opponents  do  exactly  what  they  charge 
him  with  doing.  They  take  a  text  and  force  it  to  mean 
•everywhere  what  it  means  once.  Dr.  Woodrow  does  not 
do  that.  If  he  had  done  it,  he  would  never  have  written 
that  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  'probably  true.'  If  he 
had  done  as  his  opponents  did  and  violated  the  rules  of 
interpretation  by  forcing  a  word  to  mean  in  one  place 
what  it  did  in  another,  he  would  have  written  that  evolu- 
tion is  a  demonstrated  hypothesis.  Dr.  Woodrow's  posi- 
tion is  that  the  expression  'dust'  is  an  ambiguous  one. 
As  the  Bible  has  left  the  question  an  open  one,  the  child 
of  God  can  go  through  that  open  door  into  the  domain  of 
science  to  seek  light.  If  the  knowledge  of  what  material 
man  was  made  of  was  necessary  for  the  saving  of  souls, 
or  an  essential  matter  of  faith,  the  Bible  would  never 
liave  left  the  question  involved  in  doubt.  That  shut  and 
silent  Bible  is  his  passport  into  the  regions  of  science, 
and  gives  him  permission  to  investigate  his  ancestry  for 
himself. 

"Brethren  on  the  other  side  object  to  the  word  'extra- 
scriptural  ;'  if  they  don't  like  that,  they  can  take  the  log- 
ical reverse,  and  call  it  'intra-scriptural,'  and  admit  that 
evolution  is  in  the  Bible.  They  object  to  non-contradic- 
tion as  applied  to  the  theory,  and  seem  to  be  equally 
averse  to  contradiction.  I  may  say  for  my  side  that  we 
liave  piped   unto   our   opponents,    and   they  would   not 


492  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

fiance,  and  mourned  unto  tlicni  and  they  have  not  la- 
mented. 

"I  do  not  see  why  an  immediate  vote  should  not  be 
taken.  I  am  as  anxious  to  go  home  as  anybody,  but  I 
jjropose  to  stand  by  these  guns  until  the  ship  goes  down. 
Synod  may  murder  and  bury  this  truth  if  it  sees  tit.  I 
will  not  stand  by  the  grave  with  streaming  eyes,  but  with 
contidenee  that  God  will  give  it  strength  to  rule  in  his 
own  good  time.  I  challenge  any  man  to  say  that  the 
theorv  of  evolution  is  not  extra-scriptural." 

The  Eev.  H.  B.  Pratt:  "I  say  so." 

"Put  him  on  record,  Mr.  Clerk.  Put  it  away  in  the 
archives  that  my  brother,  wdiile  believing  that  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  is  in  the  Bible,  objects  to  having  it  taught  in 
the  Theological  Seminary !  Because  there  is  something 
about  man  in  the  Bible,  any  study  of  man  is  called  intra- 
scriptural.  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  because  the  sun 
and  moon  and  stars  are  in  the  Bible,  we  must  go  there  to 
study  astronomy ;  that  because  the  earth  is  in  the  Bible,, 
we  must  go  there  to  study  geography.  It  is  claimed  that 
the  doctrine  is  extra-confessional. 

''Tt  has  been  declared  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
shocks  the  instincts  of  the  human  heart.  Instinct  is 
often  not  from  God,  but  from  training.  It  is  said  the 
sensibilities  of  the  church  are  shocked.  The  sensibilities 
of  the  Jewish  church  were  shocked  when  they  heard  of 
the  Babe  of  Bethlehem.  Instinct  is  frequently  opposed 
to  common  sense.  I  have  wondered  how  any  human 
mind  ever  originated  the  idea  that  there  was  some  bearing 
of  the  evolution  theory  on  the  human  body  of  the  Saviour. 
There  is  nothing  in  that.  There  is  no  connection  between 
evolution  and  the  human  body  of  Christ  that  should  shock 
any  properly  educated  Bible  student.  The  first  promise 
spoke  of  'the  seed  of  the  woman' — the  woman  who  was  not 
descended  from  the  brutes,  but  created  by  God  from  the 
body  of  Adam.  Jesus  Christ  in  his  human  nature  did 
not  descend  from  Adam  by  ordinary  generation.  He 
was  not  a  descendant  of  Adam,  but  came  from  Eve  to 
Mary.  When  Christ  was  on  earth  he  ate  bread  and  meat, 
and  they  were  assimilated  with  his  flesh  and  bone,  and  be- 
came part  of  the  actual  body  of  the  Son  of  God.    Is  that  a 


CONTKOVEKSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  493 

shocking  statement?  It  is  true,  however.  I  do  not  see 
the  use  of  such  talk  as  has  been  heard  about  shocked  sen- 
sibilities from  this  platform.  It  is  a  substitution  of 
rhetoric  and  stage-acting  and  figures  of  speech  for  plain, 
scripture-informed  common  sense." 

Dr.  Martin  proceeded  to  notice  what  he  called  Dr. 
Girardeau's  main  pivot,  namely :  "I  am  not  prepared  to 
say  Dr.  Woodrow's  doctrine  contradicts  (1)  the  Bible,  in 
its  highest  and  absolute  sense;  (2)  or  any  essential  fea- 
ture of  evangelical  religion;  (3)  or  any  vital  point  of 
Calvinism."  But  he  maintained  that  it  did  contradict  the 
Bible  as  expounded  in  our  standards — in  certain  particu- 
lars which  he  proceeded  to  enumerate. 

"Xow  I  call  attention  to  this  point:  If,  according  to 
Dr.  Girardeau,  Woodrow  and  the  standards  contradict,  no 
matter  in  what,  or  in  how  many  particulars,  and  this  was 
so  clear  to  Dr.  Girardeau's  mind,  and  yet  it  was  not  clear 
to  his  mind  that  Woodrow  and  the  Bible  contradict  each 
other,  then  clearly,  just  to  that  extent,  no  matter  how 
much  or  how  little,  the  standards  must  vary  from  the 
Bible.  If  so,  then  amend  the  standards  so  as  to  be  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  Bible;  and  then,  since  Wood- 
row  and  the  Bible  did  not  contradict,  so  also  Woodrow 
and  the  standards  could  not  contradict.  Instead,  how- 
ever, of  seeking  to  amend  the  standards,  they  were  seek- 
ing to  amend  Woodrow.  Instead  of  prosecuting  the 
standards  for  not  being  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
Bible,  they  were  prosecuting  Woodrow,  because  he  was,  in 
their  judgment,  not  in  harmony  with  the  standards  !" 

Dr.  Martin  continued :  "Synod  has  just  as  much  right 
to  discuss  how  Dr.  Woodrow  will  vote  at  the  next  elec- 
tion as  to  discuss  his  extra-scriptural  views  on  evolution. 
The  question  of  his  vote  could  be  brought  up  just  as  this 
question  has  been.  It  might  be  argued  that  as  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  are  Demo- 
■cratic  to  the  core,  and  the  Seminary  is  supported  by  Dem- 
ocrats, Dr.  Woodrow's  statement  that  he  would  probably 
vote  for  Blaine  would  be  taken  as  likely  to  injure  the  in- 
stitution, and  he  could  have  been  investigated  by  the 
"board,  and  brought  before  Synod  to  answer  for  his  extra- 
ficriptural  politics,  just  as  he  has  been  brought  to  answer 


494  MY  LIFE  A^^D  TIMES. 

for  his  extra-scriptural  opinion  on  evolution — because 
both  are  opposed  to  the  general  sentiment  of  the  church. 

''I  contend  that  the  purpose  for  which  Dr.  Woodrow's 
chair  was  established  was  for  teaching  the  connection  be- 
tween science  and  the  Bible,  and  that  he  has  done  that  and 
nothing  else.  He  has  not  taught  or  inculcated  the  theory 
of  evolution.  He  has  taught,  as  he  was  bound  to  do,  the 
connection  between' the  probable  hypothesis  of  evolution 
and  the  revealed  word.  There  is  no  inconsistency  in  the 
action  of  the  majority  of  the  board  in  endorsing  Dr. 
Woodrow's  course  while  repudiating  his  theory,  for  hi& 
teaching  was  at  the  inevitable  and  direct  demand  of  his 
duty.  lie  has  been  brought  before  the  only  la^vful  tri- 
bmial  and  tried,  and  a  verdict  of  'not  guilty'  rendered, 
and  yet  Synod  is  asked  to  sentence  him  to  have  his  mouth 
sealed  unlawfully. 

''As  my  view  on  evolution  has  been  extensively  pub- 
lished in  several  ways,  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to 
define  it.  I  think  it  well,  however,  to  say  that  I  am  not 
a  convert  to  Dr.  Woodrow^'s  theory  of  evolution.  I  neither 
believe  nor  disbelieve  it.  I  am  an  humble  inquirer  after 
light." 

He  then  proceeded  to  describe  the  effect  of  the  adoption^ 
of  the  minority  report.  ''Students  in  Dr.  Woodrow's 
class-room,  asking  him  for  information  regarding  the  evo- 
lution theory  or  the  meaning  of  the  word  'dust'  in  certain 
places  in  the  Bible,  would  be  informed  that  persistence  in- 
such  requests  would  be  rebellion  against  the  associated 
s^Tiods,  which  had  forbidden  the  discussion  of  those  sub- 
jects in  the  Seminary.  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  the 
student  would  be  allowed  tO'  ask  the  information  lie 
wanted  from  any  of  the  other  professors.  At  any  rate,  the 
man  who  has  been  especially  selected  and  commissioned 
to  investigate  such  subjects  would  have  his  mouth  closed- 

"Evolution  is  a  living  question.  In  the  hands  of  infidel 
scientists  it  is  used  to  contradict  the  Bible,  and  by  the 
articles  regarding  it  in  secular  papers  the  impression  is- 
left  on  the  minds  of  thousands  that  if  evolution  is  true, 
the  Bible  is  false.  Dr.  Woodrow  shows  and  teaches  his 
students  that  if  the  truth  of  evolution  should  be  demon- 
strated, the  Bible  would  not  1)c  contradicted.    If  evolution) 


CONTROVERSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  49'5 

should  prove  to  be  false  science,  it  would  still  not  contra- 
dict God's  word.  He  sends  them  forth  armed  against  all 
the  assaults  of  scientific  infidelity.  The  minority  report 
proposes  to  tie  his  hands  from  supplying  this  armor. 

"I  can  never  forget  that  it  was  the  lectures  in  Dr. 
"Woodrow's  class-room  that  checked  me  in  a  wild  down- 
ward career  to  infidelity  and  atheism  and  cheerless  blank 
despair. 

"Dr.  "Woodrow  has  taught  his  students  of  the  hypoth- 
esis of  the  specific  diversity  of  races,  and  has  disproved  it ; 
he  has  given  them  the  hypothesis  of  the  sun  being  the 
centre,  and  has  proven  it.  No  objection  is  made  to  either. 
The  only  fault  the  minority  seem  to  find  is  with  the  un- 
proven  hypothesis — one  still  in  doubt,  and  neither  proven 
nor  disproven.  1  deny  that  Dr.  Woodrow  'teaches'  the 
doctrine  of  evolution.  He  handles  it  to  show  it  in  its  con- 
nection with  the  Bible,  and  presents  it  as  an  unproven 
hypothesis. 

''In  order  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  minority  report, 
five  questions  ought  to  be  answered  and  proved :  First, 
What  is  the  accepted  interpretation  ?  Second,  What  is 
the  scripture  so  interpreted  ?  Third,  Where  is  the 
church's  accepted  interpretation  ?  Fourth,  Is  this  'ac- 
cepted' interpretation  the  true  interpretation  ?  Fifth, 
Wlierein  does  Dr.  Woodrow  contradict  either  (1)  the 
church's  accepted  interpretation  ?  or  (2)  the  true  inter- 
pretation ( 

"There  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  action  of  the  majority 
of  the  board.  It  had  a  perfect  right  to  say  that  while  it 
did  not  agree  with  Dr.  Woodrow's  opinion  that  the  hy- 
pothesis of  evolution  was  probably  true,  it  approved  of 
his  teaching  the  connection  between  that  doctrine  and  the 
Bible.  The  action  of  the  majority  of  the  board  places  the 
church  in  the  only  absolutely  safe  position  she  can  obtain. 
If  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  should  be  disproven,  the 
church  would  not  have  been  committed  to  it  in  any  way. 
If  it  sliould  be  proven^  she  would  not  have  been  com- 
mitted against  it.  In  either  case  the  church's  ministers 
Avould  have  knowledge  of  the  subject  and  understand  that 
the  scripture  is  not  contradicted.  The  question  of  how 
far  Dr.  Woodrow's  scientific  views  should  coincide  with 


496  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

those  of  the  church  before  he  should  teach  them  in  the 
Seminary  is  no  question  at  alL  Dr.  Woodrow  cannot  be 
judged  by  the  standards  of  the  other  professors  who  teach 
theology.  The  church  has  a  theological  creed  and  the 
divine  right  to  shape  one,  but  she  has  no  scientific  creed 
and  no  possible  right  to  make  one.  She  has  nothing  to  do 
with  science  as  a  church.  ]^o  member  of  Synod  would 
vote  to  amend  the  Confession  so  as  to  declare  a  belief  that 
the  world  is  a  sphere.  Why  ?  Because  you  would  have 
to  go  outside  the  word  of  God  to  prove  it.  It  is  so  with 
the  evolution  theory.  The  church  as  a  church  has  no 
right  to  an  opinion  about  it,  and  no  right  to  inquire  Dr. 
Woodrow's  opinion  about  it,  so  long  as  he  shows  that  it 
does  not  contradict  the  scripture.  Calvin  taught  that  the 
church  should  investigate  only  where  the  Bible  gaiided 
her,  and  stop  short  where  its  light  failed.  'Preach  the 
word.'  The  Saviour's  last  command  was  to  'teach  all 
things  that  1  have  commanded  you.'  We  are  told  to  teach 
nothing  else.  God  has  fixed  a  great  gulf  between  science 
and  the  Bible.  jSTo  man  ever  studied  science  with  the 
Bible  without  going  wrong ;  no  man  ever  tried  to  save  his 
soul  by  the  laws  of  nature  without  being  equally  wrong. 
The  church  has  as  much  to  do  with  Dr.  Woodrow's  politics 
as  it  has  with  his  scientific  views,  and  has  nothing  to  do 
with  either.  Orthodoxy  in  politics  and  orthodoxy  in 
science  has  nothing  to  do  with  orthodoxy  in  Presbyte- 
rian ism. 

"In  case  Dr.  Woodrow's  mouth  is  closed  on  the  evolu- 
tion question,  what  will  the  Seminary  do  with  the  students 
who  come  there  from  the  colleges  and  universities  or  from 
a  course  of  reading,  eager  to  know  about  this  great  subject 
of  evolution,  and  seeking  light  on  it  and  on  its  relation 
to  revelation  ?  You  may  silence  such  inquiries  by  telling 
the  inquirer  to  content  himself  with  reading  his  Bible, 
but  you  will  have  an  inquiry  living  in  an  active  mind 
which  may  find  a  destructive  or  dangerous  answer  any- 
where. 

''If  any  one  feels  that  he  knows  absolutely  the  meaning 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  use  of  the  word  'dust'  in  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  Genesis,  and  that  it  must  be  inorganic 
dust,  then  he  can  vote  for  the  minority  report.     If  he  has 


CONTROVERSIES   OF    SCIENCE.  497 

a  donbt  on  the  subject,  he  will  have  to  sustain  the  ma- 
jority. Sifted  doAvn  and  run  through  the  crucible  to  the 
last  analysis,  that  is  the  substance  of  the  whole  subject, 
and  the  point  of  difference  between  the  two  reports.  One 
■of  them,  the  minority,  must  take  the  ground  that  that  dust 
in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  means  absolutely  and  in- 
variably inorganic  dust.  The  other  says  it  is  probably 
organic  dust.  The  majority  report  is  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt." 

Rev.  W.  J.  McKay,  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
Seminary,  said  :  "What  are  the  constitutional  limitations 
•on  the  teaching  of  the  professors  ?  They  are  laid  dowm  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  associated  synods,  and  the  board 
is  required  to  hold  the  professors  to  them.  The  only  lim- 
itation I  can  find  is  that,  on  being  inaugurated,  the  teach- 
ers should  bind  themselves  to  accept  the  standards  of  the 
church,  and  to  teach  nothing  contrary  to  them.  All  are 
•agreed  that  the  standards  are  the  church's  interpretation 
of  the  Bible.  But  who  is  to  interpret  the  standards  ? 
What  is  a  received  interpretation  ?  It  is  the  interpreta- 
-tion  of  popular  sentiment  in  the  church  and  of  the  lower 
church  courts.  ]^o  authority  should  interpret  the  laws 
it  does  not  make,  and  surely  professors  in  their  teaching 
and  the  Board  of  Directors  in  their  management  ought 
not  to  be  controlled  by  such  a  shifting  thing  as  public 
feeling." 

Dr.  Girardeau  rose  and  said  the  whole  question  was,  in 
his  view,  one  simply  of  executive  policy.  ''There  is  no  de- 
mand for  any  dogmatic  declaration  or  any  theory.  The 
board  is  in  the  position  of  an  executive  committee  of 
Synod,  with  its  acts  subject  to  review." 

Mr.  McKay  continued :  '"How  far  is  the  church  respon- 
sible for  the  teaching  of  any  of  its  teachers,  professors,  or 
preachers  ?  Dr.  Girardeau  teaches  certain  views  of  the 
'diaconate,  but  the  church  does  not  endorse  them.  In  this 
present  case  the  church  is  responsible  for  the  fact  of  Dr. 
Woodrow's  teaching  the  connection  between  evolution 
and  the  scripture,  because  he  teaches  it  under  her  orders, 
but  she  is  not  responsible  for  his  private  scientific  opin- 
ions or  for  his  expression  of  them.  A  certain  amount  of 
►latitude  is  demanded. 


498  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

"It  has  been  stated  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  not  on  triaL. 
His  principles  and  beliefs  are  on  trial,  however,  and  he- 
cannot  be  separated  from  them.  He  must  stand  or  go- 
down  with  them.  Dr.  Girardeau  has  expressed  his  will- 
ingness to  put  a  shield  between  Dr.  Woodrow  and  the- 
charge  of  heresy,  but  the  paper  he  defends  does  not." 

Dr.  Girardeau  said  he  was  willing  to  have  the  paper 
amended  to  do  so. 

Mr.  McKay  said  he  might  be,  but  those  who  prepared  it 
had  not  incorporated  any  such  amendment.  "And  it  is 
needed.  One  paper  assuming  to  represent  the  church  has 
announced  'heresy  in  Columbia  Seminary,'  and  has  not 
only  sought  thereby  to  injure  the  Seminary  and  its  pro- 
fessors, but  to  put  a  black  mark  on  every  student  who  has^ 
come  from  the  institution  in  the  last  twenty-five  years. 
They  are  also  on  trial. 

"If  the  action  of  the  majority  of  the  board  is  sustained. 
Dr.  AVoodrow  will  still  be  amenable  to  trial,  and  can  be 
brought  up  for  trial  in  a  regular  way.  The  cry  of  'danger' 
and  'heresy'  has  softened  down  to  a  whisper  that  the- 
teaching  of  Dr.  Woodrow  may  contradict  the  interpreta- 
tion by  the  standards  of  the  scriptures.  But  it  does  not 
even  do  that,  for  the  only  mention  by  the  standards  of  the- 
material  composition  of  Adam  is  in  the  Catechism,  w^here 
the  Bible's  lang-uage,  'the  dust  of  the  ground'  is  simply 
reproduced  without  comment,  the  Westminster  compilers 
having  wisely  omitted  to  say  whether  the  dust  was  organic 
or  inorganic." 

Dr.  Hemphill  moved  that  Dr.  Woodrow  be  requested 
to  speak  at  half-past  seven  o'clock,  and  that  after  his 
speech,  debate  be  cut  off,  he  having  the  reply  to  anything 
further  said.     So  ordered. 

At  the  night  session  Professor  James  Wo<3drow  took 
the  platform  and  spoke  in  his  own  defence : 

"I  met  the  Svnod  nineteen  vears  aa;o,  durina;  the  dark, 
times  that  tried  men's  souls.  Then  I  communed  with  my 
brethren  touching  the  same  institution  whose  interests  are 
now  occupying  so  much  of  your  attention."  Dr.  Wood- 
row  reviewed  briefly  the  circumstances  of  that  time  when 
its  nearest  friends  were  ready  to  give  up  the  ship  and 
retire.    "It  is  a  source  of  comfort  to  me  that  at  that  time- 


COISTTROVEKSIES   OF   SCIE^fCE.  4:99^ 

I  was  able  to  do  something  to  restore  hope  and  reanimate 
the  beloved  institution. 

"For  thirty-two  years  I  have  been  your  servant.  Yon 
have  known  me,  known  my  manner  of  life,  and  tried  me, 
and  know  if  you  have  ever  known  anything  in  me  worthy 
of  distrust." 

"As  I  have  sat  in  this  body  and  heard  the  discussions,  I 
have  sometimes  wondered  of  whom  you  were  speaking.. 
When  I  heard  words  of  praise,  I  knew  they  were  not  de- 
served ;  when  1  heard  words  of  blame,  I  felt  that  I  had 
not  merited  them.  I  am  not  guilty  of  the  things  said  and 
reported  concerning  me.  I  have  heard  it  said  that  I  am 
not  on  trial.  I  know  I  am  not.  There  is  no  indictment 
against  me  as  against  one  on  trial.  I  know  that  the- 
church  is  a  law-abiding  body,  and  having  thrown  its  pro- 
tecting segis  around  me,  it  will  not  take  my  ecclesiastical 
life  from  me  by  lynch  law. 

"But  things  have  been  said  that  might  have  announced 
to  me  that  I  rnn  on  trial.  There  has  been  talk  of  offences, 
and  discussions  of  whether  or  not  I  could  be  accused  of 
heresy.  It  has  been  taken  for  granted  that  there  is  some 
accusation  against  me. 

"I  have  not  been  summoned  here  as  I  would  have  been 
if  I  were  a  prisoner  at  the  bar.  I  have  come  voluntarily. 
I  know  not  how  to  describe  this — shall  I  call  it  process  ? 
Is  it  a  process  ?  I  ask  pardon  if  I  misuse  terms.  I  am 
in  such  profound  ignorance  of  whether  I  am  a  prisoner  or 
not  that  I  can  hardly  select  the  proper  terms." 

"The  Board  of  Directors  asked  me  to  deliver  an  address 
explaining  the  connection  between  evolution  and  the  Bible 
as  taught  in  my  class-room,  with  the  statement  that  the 
assaults  of  iniidel  science  by  evolution  and  other  insidious 
errors  were  injuring  the  cause  of  Christ.  For  years  I 
had  been  teaching  that  the  theory  of  evolution,  true  or 
false,  does  not  contradict  the  scriptures.  The  board  has 
reported  to  the  synods,  rejoicing  that  no  evolution  or 
other  insidious  errors  were  taught  in  the  Seminary."  Dr. 
Woodrow  then  read  the  resolutions  of  the  majority  of  the 
board,  adopted  after  considering  his  address.  "Such 
words  from  such  men,  the  representatives  of  the  Synod, 
are  reward  enough  for  the  labors  of  twenty-four  years.. 


500  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

They  satisfy  me  that  I  am  not  walking  far  astray  in  the 
paths  of  infidelity  and  heresy. 

"In  the  year  1857  the  initial  steps  for  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Perkins  chair  were  taken,  nnder  resolutions 
reciting  the  attacks  of  science  on  religion,  and  recom- 
mending the  creation  of  a  chair  of  natural  science  in  con- 
nection with  revealed  religion.  I  was  called  to  that  chair 
without  my  solicitation,  and  without  word  or  act  of  mine 
to  secure  it.  I  was  taken  from  other  work  for  the  church. 
I  was  teaching  by  your  authority  and  in  your  name,*  and 
spending  as  much  of  my  time  as  I  possibly  could  in 
preaching  to  the  poor  and  neglected  in  the  regions  round 
about.  You  knew,  Moderator — that  is,  the  church  knew 
— what  my  opinions  were ;  I  had  been  serving  you  for 
<3ight  years.  I  taught  one  and  another  of  those  who  are  to- 
night in  this  house,  principles  which,  since  I  came  here 
into  this  city  of  Greenville,  I  have  heard  denounced  as 
•contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  standards  of 
our  church.  The  very  men  wdio  called  me  to  that  chair 
had  either  sat  under  me,  or  had  been  my  associates,  or  had 
been  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Oglethorpe 
University,  or  had  been  of  those  who  confirmed  or  ap- 
proved of  my  nomination  and  my  teaching.  Consequently 
you  were  not  electing  some  one  who  might  have  enter- 
tained opinions  that  were  wholly  and  grossly  different 
from  those  which  you  would  have  taught  the  theological 
students  of  this  church. 

"What  was  I  to  teach  ?  To  what  was  I  called  ?  At  the 
earliest  moment  I  met  the  directors  to  consult  as  to  what  I 
was  to  do.  The  chair  w^as  a  new  one.  ISTo  other  seminary 
liad  one  like  it.  How  was  I,  a  youth,  to  know  what  to  do 
without  the  guidance  of  the  church  ?  I  told  them  my 
plans  and  views,  and  what  I  proposed  to  do,  and  received 
their  approval.  Since  then  I  have  followed  those  in- 
structions, and  walked  strictly  in  the  narrow  path  pointed 
out  to  me." 

He  then  read  from  his  inaugural  address,  setting  forth 
his  eonception  of  his  duties,  in  which  he  had  said  that  one 

*  He  had  been  for  eight  years  professor  of  Natural  Science  in 
Oglethorpe  University  wlien  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  by  election, 
transferred  him  to  Columbia  Seminary. 


CONTROVEESIES    OF   SCIENCE.  501 

of  them  would  be  to  show  that  when  science  and  the  Bible 
were,  or  were  supposed  to  be,  contradictory,  it  was  either 
false  science  or  a  false  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  ''Now 
that  I  teach  that  certain  popular  ideas  floating  in  the 
public  mind  of  the  meaning  of  certain  words  are  wrong, 
will  you  punish  me  for  it  ?  If  I  am  to  teach  only  what 
is  pronounced  by  some  ecclesiastical  body  an  established 
and  proved  dogma,  why  did  they  not  tell  me  so  twenty- 
three  years  ago  ? 

''In  those  twenty-three  years  I  have  learned  something 
— the  chief  thing;  the  entire  absence  of  discord  between 
true  science  and  the  revealed  word.  I  have  not  been 
handling  science  for  its  own  sake.  In  no  case  have  I 
taught  it  but  for  the  purpose  for  which  I  was  ordered  to 
teach  or  handle  it  by  the  voice  of  the  church,  representing 
the  voice  of  God.  The  only  thing  I  have  ever  told  my 
students  that  it  is  their  duty  to  receive  from  me  is  that 
they  are  to  bow  to  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  and  to  nothing 
else ;  that  they  are  to  be  freemen  in  the  Lord.  I  am  to  be 
forbidden  to  inculcate  ?  I  have  never  inculcated  except  in 
the  sense  I  have  told  you.  To  science  as  science  nobody 
has  ever  heard  me  allude  within  the  walls  of  that  Sem- 
inary. 

"The  chief  purjDOse  of  the  chair,  as  expressed  in  the  res- 
olution creating  it,  is  to  'refute  the  objections  of  infidel 
scientists.'  When  two  witnesses  contradict  each  other, 
do  lawyers  endeavor  to  make  them  say  the  same  thing  ? 
Do  they  not  rather  appeal  to  judge  and  jury  with  some 
reasonable  hypothesis  to  remove  the  apparent  contradic- 
tion ? 

"I  warned  the  church  when  I  took  my  vows  that  I 
w^ould  teach  that  the  teachings  of  geology  rega.rding  the 
antiquity  of  the  world  are  true.  It  was  understood  that  I 
would  not  teach  that  the  world  was  but  one  hundred  and 
forty-four  hours  older  than  Adam ;  that  I  would  say  that 
I  knew  that  the  world  was  so  old  that  the  mind  of  man 
cannot  grasp  the  years  or  the  centuries  or  the  thousands 
of  years  of  its  age.  But  I  have  never  sought  to  teach  that 
the  Confession  of  Faith  means  anything  but  that  the 
world  was  created  in  six  days.  There  is  not  one  word 
or  syllable  in  all  the  Confession  of  Faith  or  Catechisms 


.502  MY  LIFE   AXD   TIMES. 

that  I  would  wish  to  have  changed,  evolutionist  though  I 
may  be.  There  is  nothing  in  them  to  contradict  my  be- 
liefs. In  the  word  of  God  there  is  not  one  word  or  syl- 
lable I  do  not  believe." 

"What  right  has  the  church  to  teach  anything  regard- 
ing natural  science  ?  What  right  has  the  church  to  do 
anything  (  I  will  read  the  commission.  As  Christ  was 
about  to  leave  this  world  in  the  body,  he  said  to  the  as- 
sembled eleven,  'Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  teach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.'  There  is  the  commission.  If 
the  church  authoritatively  undertakes  to  teach  anything 
outside  the  Bible,  she  is  transgressing  the  law  and  adding 
to  it  and  bringing  upon  herself  the  plagues  written  in  the 
book.  But  when  a  dnt)'  is  commanded  or  a  right  conferred 
by  competent  authority,  everything  involved  with  the  ful- 
fillment of  that  duty  or  the  enjoyment  of  that  right  goes 
with  the  command  or  tlie  grant.  One  of  these  duties  is  to 
train  and  educate  men  to  preach  the  gospel  by  the  best 
means  devised  by  tlie  wisdom  and  knowledge  given  us  by 
God.  The  churcli  may  not  only  teach  those  things  that 
tend  to  prepare  and  ecpiip  preachers  of  the  word,  but  it 
may  do  anything  tending  to  aid  the  preaching  of  the  gos- 
pel. It  may  buy  land  or  exchange,  it  may  build  houses,  all 
with  the  limitation  that  the  acts  done  are  to  promote  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  with  the  greatest  power.  Its 
teaching  is  not  limited  to  the  seminary.  It  may  go 
into  primary  scliools  and  teach  the  children  their  alpha- 
l)et ;  it  may  send  boys  to  schools  and  colleges.  The  church 
may  as  truly  teacli  matliematics  as  theology,  provided 
it  is  for  the  equijmient  of  men  to  preach  and  teach  the 
gospel. 

"What  is  the  responsibility"  of  the  church  for  my  teach- 
ing? Is  it  to  examine  every  word  I  say  to  see  if  it  is 
strictly  correct  ?  Does  it  examine  the  chemistry  taught  by 
Professor  Martin  in  Davidson  ?  When  chemistry  was 
revolutionized  a  few  years  ago,  was  that  professor  ex- 
pected to  come  before  Synod  and  tell  them  he  would  teach 
the  new  chemistry  ?  Or  was  he  to  teach  the  old  chemistry 
that  he  knew  was  wrong  because  he  had  ])egun  teaching 
it  ?  With  all  due  respect,  what  does  Synod  know  about 
chemistry  ?     When  any  man  employs  a  lawyer,  does  he 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  503 

Teqnire  him  to  submit  to  him  all  his  pleadings  and  tell 
him  the  details  of  management  ?  When  a  pastor  is  called 
to  a  church,  is  he  instructed  how  to  preach,  and  whether 
he  shall  use  prose  or  poetrv  ?  The  only  right  the  church 
has  to  interfere  with  any  of  its  teachers  is  when  they  teach 
that  which  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted 
by  the  church  standards.  ISTo  man  sitting  as  a  presbyter 
can  dare,  as  such,  to  have  an  opinion  on  any  subject  ex- 
cept as  that  subject  is  related  to  the  word  of  God.  You 
have  no  right  or  authority  to  discuss  or  consider  any  of 
my  opinions  except  as  they  relate  to  the  word.  Xo  au- 
thority is  given  you,  and  when  you  take  it  you  step  be- 
yond your  rights  and  grasp  at  things  which  the  Lord,  the 
King,  has  kept  out  of  your  hands." 

Dr.  Woodrow  then  proceeded  to  analyse  the  report  of 
tthe  minority  of  the  Committee  on  the  Seminary.  ''I  know 
that  every  word  of  affection  and  respect  for  myself  ut- 
tered by  the  gentleman  who  drew  that  paper  (Dr.  Gir- 
ardeau) is  sincere  and  true.  But  the  warmth  of  his 
heart  has  on  this  occasion  interfered  with  the  usual  clear 
operations  of  his  head.  Where  is  the  necessity  for  saying 
that  the  question  of  my  heresy  is  not  before  the  Synod  ? 
If  it  is  not,  what  is  the  use  of  saying  anything  about  it  ? 
Yet  the  fourth  resolution  charges  me  with  teaching  doc- 
trine contrary  to  the  teaching  of  scripture  as  interpreted 
by  the  church  standards — that  is,  contrary  to  the  right 
and  true  interpretation  of  scripture."  Dr.  Woodrow  read 
from  the  Form  of  Government  defining  as  an  offence  the 
holding  or  teaching  of  anything  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  the  definition  of  heresy  as  false  teaching  likely 
to  do  much  injury.  "^l\  opponents  declare  that  my  false 
teachings  will  do  vast  harm.  I  acknowledge  that  I  have 
spread  them  industriously.  The  charges  against  me  are 
the  gravest  described  in  the  Form  of  Government,  and 
if  they  can  be  made  good,  will  require  my  deposition, 
imless  I  can  use  the  excuse  provided  in  the  Fomi,  and 
class  myself  as  a  person  of  feeble  understanding.  There 
is  comfort  in  the  thought  that  my  accuser  does  not  really 
hold  me  to  be  amenable  to  these  dreadful  charges;  for 
though  he  has  known  my  views  in  general  for  twenty-four 
years,  being  much  of  that  time  in  the  same  institution,  he 


504  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

has  never  breathed  to  me  that  I  was  guilty  of  such  enor- 
mities. 

"The  second  resohition  holds  mc  up,  not  as  contradict- 
ing the  Bible  in  its  highest  and  absolute  sense,  but  as  con- 
tradicting the  interpretations  of  the  Bible  by  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States. 

''Is  Synod  to  publish  its  shame  to  the  world  by  speaking 
of  the  Bible  in  'its  highest  and  absolute  sense,'  thereby 
implying  that  there  is  a  higher  sense  than  the  church 
standards  contain — that  the  standards  are  not  true  l 
When  a  man  who  has  learned  geology  comes  to  his  min- 
ister to  inquire  the  way  of  life,  but  distrusting  the  Bible 
because  he  knows  the  statement  that  the  world  was  made 
in  six  literal  days  is  imtrue,  is  the  minister  to  be  silent 
because  the  Confession  seals  his  lips  ?  Or  is  he  to  say, 
'The  Bible  does  not  teach  that  lie.  The  Bible  is  true.  It 
does  not  teach  that  the  world  is  but  six  thousand  years  old.' 
And  yet^  Moderator,  you  are  asked,  by  adopting  this  reso- 
lution, to  proclaim  to  the  world  that  these  two  things  are 
entirely  different. 

"The  third  resolution  condemns  as  inexpedient  and  in- 
judicious the  declaration  of  the  Board  of  Directors  that 
the  relations  between  science  and  scripture  are  plainly, 
correctly,  and  satisfactorily  set  forth  in  Dr.  Woodrow's 
address,  ^ow,  Moderator,  observe  what  is  commended 
here — just  one  thing  and  nothing  else.  There  is  no  ap- 
proval of  Dr.  Woodrow's  ideas  about  evolution ;  what  is 
commended  is  simply  Dr.  Woodrow's  setting  forth  of 
the  relations  between  the  teachings  of  science  and  those 
of  God's  word,  namely,  that,  when  rightly  interpreted,  they 
do  not  contradict  each  other.  The  board  understood  well 
that  the  professor  has  not  been  teaching  natural  science  to 
his  students,  but  simply  setting  forth  the  relations  be- 
tween science  and  scripture." 

Recurring  again  to  the  fourth  resolution,  Dr.  Wood- 
row  said :  "It  charges  that  the  board  has  virtually  ap- 
proved my  inculcating  and  defending  an  unverified  hy- 
pothesis. Moderator,  they  did  nothing  of  the  kind ;  the 
Board  of  Directors  neither  virtually  nor  otherwise  ap- 
proved of  the  inculcating  and  defending  the  hypothesis  of 
evolution.     If  they  had,  they  would,  when  speaking  in 


COXTROVEESIES    OF    SCIENCE.  505 

the  name  of  the  Lord,  have  arrog-ated  to  decide  a  question 
\vhich  the  Lord  had  not  commitled  to  them.  They  would 
have  been  expressing  an  opinion  that  an  hypothesis  of 
natural  science  was  true,  which  neither  they  nor  this 
Synod,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  are  competent 
to  do. 

"]^ow,  let  us  ask  what  are  the  facts  as  to  the  opinion  of 
experts  touching  evolution  ?  I  do  not  like,  any  more  than 
is  necessary,  to  refer  to  myself  in  any  way,  but  in  this 
case  I  must  be  allowed  to  stand  here  as  a  witness  for  the 
time  being.  Beginning  in  the  far  northeast,  at  Harvard 
University,  there  are  the  distinguished  professor  of  Bot- 
any, Asa  Gray,  and  a  number  of  young  men  associated 
with  him ;  and  near  by  Alexander  Agassiz,  the  son  of  the 
distinguished  Louis  Agassiz,  and  very  like  his  father  in 
the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  however  unlike  him  in  his  be- 
lief on  this  particular  subject — all  evolutionists.  Coming 
to  the  University  at  Providence,  Brown  LTniversity,  there 
is  the  son  of  a  Congregational  minister,  Professor  Pack- 
ard, wdio  is  a  pronounced  evolutionist.  At  Yale  there  is 
the  venerable  Dana,  and  there  are  the  learned  Marsh,  and 
Verrill,  and  Brewer,  and  the  younger  Dana — all  evolu- 
tionists. And  let  me  say  in  passing,  not  a  single  anti- 
evolutionist.  xVt  the  Academy  of  JSTatural  Science  in 
Philadelphia  there  are  the  earnest  Professor  Heilprin, 
and  Cope  and  Leidy  and  Lewis ;  they  are  all  evolution- 
ists, and  there  is  not  an  anti-evolutionist.  At  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  the  learned  professor  of  Biology  is  an 
evolutionist,  and  there  is  another  evolutionist,  Professor 
Brooks.  While  I  cannot  say  of  my  OAvn  personal  knowl- 
edge, I  am  told  that  in  the  University  of  Virginia  the 
same  doctrine  is  taught.  May  I  go  on  'i  What  does  Pro- 
fessor Blake  teach  by  your  authority  in  Davidson  Col- 
lege ?  If  I  make  a  mistake,  I  hope  that  any  one  who 
knows  that  I  make  a  mistake  will  correct  me.  He  teaches 
the  nebular  hypothesis  as  probably  true.  And  while  his 
colleague.  Professor  Martin,  does  not  believe  in  evolution, 
he  does  believe  what  I  believe,  that  belief  in  evolution  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  belief  in  the  sacred  scriptures, 
as  he  has  Avritten  to  me  himself.  And  so  I  am  told  that 
Professor  Du  Pre,  at  Wofford  College,  teaches  it.    I  know 


500)  MY  LIFE   AXD  TIMES, 

that  in  the  University  of  Georgia  evolution  is  taught.  I 
know — shall  I  tell  it? — that  the  Synods  of  ISTashville  and 
Alahania  and  other  synods  of  the  Scmthwcst  are  teaching 
evohition  at  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  University. 
I  know  that  the  Synod  of  Kentucky  is  teaching  evolution 
at  the  Central  University ;  and  so  I  might  go  on ;  but  this 
surely  is  enough.  Along  the  whole  line  of  these  colleges 
which  I  have  named  I  have  failed  to  find  an  exception. 

"Now  as  to  the  belief  of  naturalists  in  foreign  lands. 
When  in  feeble  health,  some  twelve  years  ago,  I  went 
abroad  and  spent  a  portion  of  my  time  in  the  enlightened 
capital  of  Saxony,  where  I  was  warmly  received  and  in- 
vited to  become  a  member  of  the  scientific  association  of 
that  city.  I  visited  the  Scientific  Association  of  Switzer- 
land in  1872,  and  I  spent  days  in  conversing  with  my  fel- 
low members  upon  this  very  subject.  In  1873,  I  had  the 
pleasure  of  attending  the  meeting  of  the  German  I^atural- 
ists'  Association  at  Wiesbaden,  and  there  too  I  pursued 
my  inquiries.  Among  others  I  made  the  acquaintance  of 
one  who  has  been  continually  named  during  this  discus- 
sion, Professor  Yirchow,  with  whom  I  conversed  freely 
touching  this  very  subject.  In  London,  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  attending  the  Geological  Society  and  the  Anthro- 
pological Society,  and  making  the  acquaintance  of  the  dis- 
tinguished naturalists  in  those  great  societies.  ISTow, 
jModerator,  do  you  want  to  know  what  I  found  ?  I  did  not 
then  believe  evolution  to  be  true ;  I  believed  it  to  be  not 
true,  and  I  wanted  to  be  upheld  and  strengthened  in  my 
opposition ;  and  I  was  trying  to  find  all  the  help  I  could 
in  that  direction.  So  far  as  the  capital  of  Saxony  was 
concerned,  the  professor  of  Comparative  Anatomy,  in 
whose  laboratory  I  was  dissecting  day  after  day,  did  not 
believe  in  ('■volution.  The  professor  of  Geology,  distin- 
guished highly  in  that  kingdom,  was  in  doubt.  But  every 
other  naturalist  in  that  association,  so  far  as  I  could 
learn,  except  those  two  and  myself,  were  decided  evolu- 
tionists. At  the  meeting  which  I  have  referred  to,  at 
Freiburg,  in  Switzerland,  I  found  no  anti-evolutionist 
except  one  Presbyterian  minister,  who  had  paid  some  at- 
tention to  science,  and  so  had  become  a  member  of  that 
association.     At  the  meetinc;  of  the  German  naturalists 


CONTEOVEKSIES    OF   SCIENCE.  507 

.at  Wiesbaden,  the  subject  having  been  brought  promi- 
nentl}'  forward,  the  greatest  interest  was  felt.  Every  one 
was  ablaze  with  regard  to>  the  matter,  and  yet  though  I 
prosecuted  my  inquiries  with  great  diligence,  I  could  not 
find  a  single  member  who  agreed  with  me.  From  my 
conversations  with  Professor  Virchow,  I  feel  sure  he 
would  be  greatly  amused  and  amazed  if  he  knew  how  he 
has  been  quoted  during  this  controversy  as  an  anti- 
evolutionist. 

*'In  my  enumeration  of  colleges  I  should  have  stated 
that  evolution  is  taught  in  the  University  of  ^orth  Caro- 
lina by  young  Professor  Holmes  from  Laurens. 

"Since  my  return  home  I  have  continued  these  in- 
quiries to  which  I  have  been  referring.  During  a  recent 
visit  to  Philadelphia,  where  I  met  many  members  of  the 
American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science, 
I  asked  each  of  them  to  what  extent  evolution  was  re- 
ceived. On  being  invariably  told  it  was  almost  univer- 
-sally  believed,  I  asked  if  they  knew  of  any  exception 
among  leading  naturalists  in  America;  the  answer  was 
always  the  same,  'Yes,  one,  Sir  William  Dawson,  of  Mon- 
treal.' During  the  same  visit  I  met  a  member  of  the 
British  Association ;  and  to  my  stereotyped  question  I 
received  the  answer  that  evolution  was  accepted  as  true 
by  nearly  all  British  naturalists.  In  France  I  have  been 
able  to  hear  of  but  one  anti-evolutionist  who  is  eminent, 
the  distinguished  De  Quatrefages." 

Dr.  Woodrow  then  read  a  letter  he  had  recently  re- 
•ceived  from  his  former  fellow  student.  Professor  William 
H.  BreAver,  of  Yale  College,  whom  he  styles  a  Christian 
gentleman.  This  eminent  scientist  had  been  engaged  in 
various  geological  surveys  and  other  scientific  work  in 
the  field,  and  was  intimately  acquainted  with  many  work- 
ing naturalists.  This  letter  was  in  reply  to  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  request  for  .the  names  of  such  naturalists  who  were, 
and  of  such  as  were  not,  evolutionists.    The  writer  says : 

"7  kno'w  of  but  one  eminent  naturalist  in  America  who  does  not 
'believe  in  evolution,'  that  is,  the  venerable  Sir  William  Dawson,  of 
■Canada,  who  is  an  illustrious  geologist  and  a  good  man. 

"When  I  speak  of  naturalists,  I  include  all  geologists,  whether 
structural  or  experts  in  paleontology.     ...     I  have  a  somewhat 


508  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

wide  personal  acquaintance  with  this  class  in  this  country,  less  so  in 
Europe. 

"I  have  an  impression  that  in  Europe  a  few  naturalists  are  still 
left,  all  old  men,  who  have  not  accepted  the  modern  doctrine  of 
evolution;  but  who  they  are  and  what  their  present  belief  is  I  do 
not  know.  While  I  can  repeat  many  names  of  eminence  there  who 
believe  in  evolution,  I  cannot  cite  one  who  does  not,  although  I  think 
some  still  exist.  ...  1  think  that  the  working  naturalists  of  the 
world  are  as  substantially  agreed  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  as  the  educated  men  of  tlie  world  are  as  to  the  rotundity 
of  tlie  earth. 

"I  am  a  member  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences.  Of  the 
ninety-four  living  members  (1  have  run  through  the  list)  I  am 
acquainted  personally  with  thirty-two  naturalists  who  believe  in 
evolution  (T  exclude  from  this  all  the  mathematicians,  astronomers, 
physicists,  engineers,  etc.,  and  all  others  whose  belief  I  have  no 
knowledge  of),  and  I  do  not  know  of  any  member,  naturalist  or 
otherwise,  who  denies  it:  but  tlien  I  have  no  positive  knowledge 
as  to  the  beliefs  of  a  number  of  the  members. 

"As  I  look  down  the  first  page  of  the  list,  I  find  the  naturalists 
(including  geologists)  Alexander  Agassiz,  Spencer  F.  Baird,  W.  K. 
Brooks,  W.  H.  Brewer,  C.  Comstoek,  E.  D.  Cope,  E.  Coues,  J.  D. 
Dana,  C.  Button,  W.  G.  Farlow,  G.  K.  Gilbert,  F.  N.  Gill,  Asa  Gray, 
and  so  on  down  the  list. 

•'There  is  an  annual  'Scientific  Directory,'  or  'Naturalists'  Di- 
rectory,' published  at  Salem,  and  some  years  ago  I  looked  over  the 
list  as  then  constituted,  and  marked  the  names  of  all  those  scientists 
whose  religious  belief  I  had  any  knowledge  of,  and  I  was  struck  with 
the  large  number  who  were  connected  with  some  evangelical  church 
—I,  then  and  still  think  a  larger  proportion  by  far  than  would 
be  found  to  be  the  case  with  a  similar  list  of  lawyers  or  doctors. 

"I  have  among  my  scientific  acquaintances  devout  and  zealous 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Episcopa- 
lians, etc.,  etc.,  who  believe  in  evolution,  and  who  are  no  more  dis- 
turbed in  their  religious  faith  by  this  belief  than  by  the  belief  that 
the  earth  is  round,  the  sun  the  centre  of  the  solar  system,  or  the 
world  more  than  six  thousand  years  old. 

"It  seems  to  me  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  now  as  firmly 
and  surely  established  as  either  of  the  three  doctrines  (dogmas,  if 
you  choose)  I  have  named.  Many  of  my  friends  will  not  discuss  it 
now,  except  as  they  might  discuss  either  of  the  other  three  beliefs 
named,  and  it  seems  to  me  most  unfortunate  that  the  clergy  should 
be  the  last  and  most  reluctant  to  accept,  even  as  an  intellectual 
belief,  a  doctrine  so  firmly  placed,  and  so  generally  accepted  by  other 
classes  of  educated  men. 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIEiS"CE.  509 

"As  a  teacher,  I  see  much  of  young  men,  and.  know  their  diffi- 
culties. 8ome  years  ago  I  had  much  experience  with  the  rougher 
elements  of  society  when  at  work  on  explorations  and  surveys ;  and 
my  belief  is  that  this  attitude  of  so  many  good  clergymen  against 
scientific  progress  is  a  more  powerful  factor  in  the  turning  of  the 
masses  away  from  religious  teaching,  which  so  many  are  deploring, 
than  all  the  writings  and  all  the  arguments  of  all  the  infidels  in 
Christendom. 

"You  and  I  are  both  old  enough  to  liave  seen  its  sad  efl'ects  in  the 
discussion  of  the  geological  question.  That  is  now  settled;  the  evil 
appears  to  be  renewed  in  the  matter  of  evolution,  with  the  same  sad 
results. 

"He  ends  with  the  prayer  that  this  Synod  may  be  kept 
from  simihir  folly. 

"^ow,  Moderator,  I  have  given  you  the  evidence  on 
this  point  fully,  and  as  clearly  as  I  could,  setting  before 
you  the  sources  of  my  information,  even  at  the  risk  of  do- 
ing that  which  was  immodest. 

"But  have  we  not  much  evidence  on  the  other  side? 
Have  we  not  heard  a  great  deal  of  Sir  William  Thom- 
son's opposition  to  evolution  ?  And  is  he  not  a  distin- 
guished scientific  man  ?  And  ought  not  his  testimony  to 
be  decisive  ?  Undoubtedly  he  is  one  of  the  most  eminent 
men  of  science  living.  But  on  a  question  of  natural  his- 
tory, is  he  an  expert?  The  sphere  of  his  greatness  lies 
outside  of  that  department  of  science.  He  has  studied 
mathematics,  the  molecular  constitution  of  matter,  elec- 
tricity and  heat,  and  various  other  physical  subjects  ;  and 
in  these  departments  of  knowledge  he  is  a  master.  But  he 
lias  not  so  studied  natural  history,  and  there  he  cannot 
speak  with  authority.  But  let  us  suppose  that  he  is  here  a 
competent  witness,  and  let  us  hear  what  he  said  some 
years  ago.  When  he  was  delivering  an  address  before  the 
British  Association,  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  way 
life  originated  on  this  planet  was  that  it  was  brought 
hither  by  meteorites  wandering  through  space  and  falling 
on  the  earth,  and  that  all  present  life  came  from  that 
source.  Xow,  as  anti-evolutionists  have  introduced  Sir 
William  as  their  witness,  they  are  bound  to  accept  his  tes- 
timony. Will  not  Judge  Walsh  there  tell  you  that  that 
is  the  rule  ?  So  here  we  have  a  person  introduced  as  a 
witness  to  prove  the  orthodox  belief,  maintaining  evolu- 


510  MY  LIFE   AND   TIMES. 

tion  by  the  most  fanciful  ideas  ever  uttered  in  relation 
to  it.  Why,  Darwin  himself  was  nearer  the  orthodox  be- 
lief than  that.  He  held  that  God  did  create  immediately 
some  thing-s — the  first  forms  of  life  on  the  earth ;  bnt  thi& 
good  Presbyterian  elder,  Sir  William  Thomson,  tells  ns 
that  he  thinks  it  most  probable  that  the  first  germs  of  life 
were  bronght  by  these  wandering  meteorites  wildly  ca- 
reering through  space ! 

''Another  anti-evolntionist  Avitncss  is  that  prince  of 
naturalists,  the  great  Louis  xlgassiz,  my  friend  and  my 
teacher.  We  are  told  that  he  pronounced  the  theory  of 
evolution  a  scientific  blunder  ;  and  surely  he  knew  if  any- 
body did.  Well,  if  we  must  receive  his  testimony  as  con- 
clusive on  one  point  in  natural  history,  we  must  receive 
it  as  equally  trustworthy  in  all.  As  believers  in  the  Bible,, 
we  are  much  interested  in  the  question  of  the  unity  of  the 
human  race.  Ask  this  master  what  he  believes  on  that 
point.  He  replies  :  'All  the  members  of  the  human  family 
belong  to  a  single  species.'  'Oh !'  you  will  say,  'that  is 
all  right;  that  is  just  what  we  believe.'  But  he  would 
stop  you  before  you  rejoiced  too  much.  'Yes,'  he  adds,  'a 
single  species,  but  that  species  consists  of  many  varieties  ; 
and  each  of  these  varieties  had  entirely  different  ances- 
tors. There  is  the  red  man,  the  negro,  the  white  man, 
and  the  Chinaman ;  and  I  know  too  much  about  natural 
history  to  believe  that  all  of  these  could  come  from  the 
same  source.  Instead  of  a  single  pair  being  created,  as 
you  think,  there  must  have  been  hundreds  of  negroes 
"created  at  the  same  time,  and  hundreds  of  Chinese,  and 
hundreds  of  white  men.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  unity 
of  origin.'  That  is  what  he  would  tell  you.  But  I  am  not 
going  to  accept  the  testimony  of  even  so  eminent  a  man  as 
conclusive  against  that  of  the  cloud  of  witnesses  I  have- 
produced  before  you,  when  I  find  him  going  so  far  astray 
and  teaching  what  I  know  to  be  not  true. 

"NTow  are  you  going  to  commit  the  Synod  of  South  Car- 
olina and  the  whole  church  to  the  assertion  that  evolution 
is  an  'unverified  hypothesis'  on  such  evidence  ?  Is  that  to 
be  the  belief  of  a  body  that  has  no  business  to  have  any 
scientific  belief?  If  you  are  going  to  have  a  scientifie 
belief  in  this  matter,  it  would  be  well  perhaps  to  study 


CONTROVERSIES   OF    SCIENCE.  511 

the  subject  somewhat  hDiiger,  lest  you  meet  the  fate  which 
has  befallen  every  council  in  every  part  of  the  Christian 
church  which  has  ever  undertaken  to  formulate  its  belief 
Avith  regard  to  natural  science  or  natural  history,  from  the 
earliest  ages  down  to  the  present  time.  I  know  that  the 
holy  office  of  163'3  has  its  defenders  and  upholders  upon 
this  floor ;  but  if  you  can  consistently  with  a  proper  sense 
of  duty,  abstain  from  putting  yourselves  in  the  same 
category,  surely  you  will  do  it. 

''The  next  allegation  in  the  minority  report  against  my 
hypothesis,"  said  Dr.  Woodrow",  ''is  that  it  is  contrary  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  scriptures  by  our  church  and  to 
her  prevailing  and  recognized  views."  He  had  read 
from  the  Confession  and  the  Larger  Catechism,  he  said, 
all  that  they  contain  on  the  subject  of  the  creation  of  man. 
''Do  those  standards  contain  anything  about  the  7node  of 
man's  creation,  that  is,  as  to  whether  it  was  mediate  or 
immediate  ?  But  this  minority  report  does  not  lean  solely 
on  our  standards,  but  refers  us  to  the  church's  prevalent 
views.  Where  are  these  to  be  found  ?  I  suppose  we  must 
go  to  prominent  Christian  men  and  ministers.  Twenty- 
five  years  ago,  had  I  wanted  to  know  the  prevailing  views 
of  the  church  about  geology,  I  would  have  gone  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Talmage,  the  honored  president  of  a  university  in 
Georgia.  He  held  the  view  that  the  world  was  only  six 
thousand  years  old,  and  that  the  scriptures  so  taught. 
That  was  the  church's  prevailing  view  then.  When  I 
came  to  Columbia,  I  found  that  the  loved  Thornwell  held 
the  same  view,  and  so  did  his  successor.  A  few  years  ago, 
I  know  that  the  three  senior  professors  at  Union  Theolog- 
ical Seminary  believed  just  as  Dr.  Talmage  did.  Those 
were  the  prevailing  and  recognized  views  of  our  church 
twenty-five  years  ago.  But  because  these  good  and 
learned  men  believed  thus  and  I  did  not,  was  I  disbeliev- 
ing the  truth  of  the  scriptures  ?  Their  judgment,  great, 
good  and  learned  as  they  were  and  are,  could  not  affect  the 
opinion  of  anv  one  who  looked  into  the  subject  for  him- 
self." 

Dr.  Woodrow  having  spoken  a  long  time,  and  being 
evidently  fatigued,  a  motion  of  adjournment  was  made, 
when  he  remarked  that  he  "was  in  the  hands  of  Synod." 


512  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

Then  he  added  that  as  home  duties  were  probably  calling 
for  some  to  retire,  he  requested  such  to  retire  now.  A 
few  did  so ;  and  then  expressing  his  thanks  for  the  little 
rest  given  him,  Dr.  Woodrow  continued:  ''I  know  that 
it  is  generally  supposed  that  if  one  believes  in  evolution 
in  one  sense  that  he  must  believe  it  in  every  sense,  ^o 
argument,  I  think,  is  necessary  to  prove  that  that  is  not 
the  case.  Is  it  true  that  what  llaeckel  believes  as  to  evolu- 
tion I  must  likewise  believe  'i  ]\Iust  I  believe  what  Her- 
bert Spencer  and  Darwin  believe  because  I  have  declared 
that  I  regard  something  else  as  probably  true  ?  So  you 
have  been  told  on  this  floor;  and  has  it  not  been  proved 
by  quotations  from  the  So uthnwsteni  Preshyterian  to  show 
that  whatever  Darwin  believes,  I  also  believe  ?  You  have 
heard  seven  reasons  given,  drawn  from  that  source,  to 
prove  this  assertion,  although  1  have  kept  saying,  'I 
don't,'  'I  don't,'  and  I  say  so  still,  the  seven  reasons  of  the 
Soufhweslerii  Preshyterian  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing. I  ask  you  if  it  is  fair  or  right  to  attribute  to  me  views 
that  I  utterly  disclaim  ?  I  do  not  say  that  this  is  done 
through  either  inability  to  understand  or  a  desire  to  mis- 
interpret ;  but  I  ask  if  it  is  fair  or  just  that  I  should  be 
.held  responsible  for  views  that  I  absolutely  abhor,  and 
which  I  have  proved  over  and  over  again  that  I  do  not 
hold.  Moderator,  knowing  that  I  had  so  explicitly  re- 
pudiated all  atheistic  forms  of  evolution,  I  could  not  but 
spring  to  my  feet  when  I  heard,  two  or  three  days  ago, 
for  the  first  time,  that  which  I  had  denounced  as  atheism 
attributed  to  me.  If  I  erred  in  so  vehemently  repelling 
the  charge,  I  crave  your  forgiveness. 

"Permit  me  to  say  that  much  of  the  difficulty  on  this 
subject  arises  from  the  failure  to  perceive  that  evolution 
and  scripture  do  not  stand  in  opposition  to  each  other, 
when  both  are  correctly  understood.  There  is  a  similar 
want  of  clear  perception  when  it  is  said  that  creation  and 
evolution  are  mutually  exclusive,  are  contradictory;  cre- 
ation meaning  tlie  inunediate  calling,  by  divine  power, 
of  something  into  existence  out  of  non-existence;  evolu- 
tion meaning  derivation  from  previous  forms  or  states  by 
inherent,  self-originated  or  eternal  laws,  independent  of 
all  connection  with  divine  ]iersonal  power.     Hence,  if  this 


CONTROVERSIES    OF    SCIENCE.  513 

is  correct,  those  who  believe  in  creation  are  theists ;  those 
who  believe  in  evolution  are  atheists.  But  there  is  no 
propriety  in  thus  mingling  in  the  definition  two  things 
which  are  so  completely  different  as  the  power  that  pro- 
duces an  effect,  and  the  mode  in  which  the  effect  is  pro- 
duced. 

''Let  me  illustrate;  take  an  oak  for  instance.  First, 
observe  the  acorn.  You  notice  that  under  the  influence 
of  heat  and  moisture  it  begins  to  swell.  Then  little  leaves 
make  their  appearance ;  then  these  leaves  are  repeated 
and  repeated  until  at  last  the  full-grown  oak  stands  before 
you.  Xow  let  us  inquire  what  is  the  religious  character 
of  this  description  of  the  acorn's  being  developed  into  an 
oak.  Do  I  need  to  show  that  in  describing  this  process 
the  idea  of  God  as  its  author  was  not  of  necessity  in- 
troduced '^  In  describing  the  changes  from  the  acorn  to 
the  oak  I  am  stating  merely  the  results  of  observation.  I 
am  not  then  considering  the  power  that  has  produced  the 
changes.  The  mere  observation  of  the  process  or  mode  by 
which  the  acorn  becomes  an  oak  does  not  necessarily  tell 
me  whether  it  is  God  who  is  the  cause  of  the  change 
or  not.  So  the  observation  of  cases  in  which  I  observe 
modification  during  descent  does  not  necessarily  tell  me 
anything  of  the  power  producing  the  observed  changes. 
Within  the  limits  of  natural  science,  it  is  only  the  natural 
or  the  ordinary,  that  which  occurs  uniformly,  that  can 
rightly  be  considered.  All  else  the  student  of  natural 
science  would  regard  as  extraordinary  or  extra-natural, 
and  so  beyond  his  province.  If  he  should  speak  of  the 
supernatural,  he  would  be  going  beyond  his  province.  So 
the  idea  of  God  is  always  present  with  the  theistic  evolu- 
tionist, though  he  may  not  express  it,  while  the  atheistic 
evolutionist  absolutely  denies  it. 

"Speaking  of  the  processes  or  modes,  it  is  true  that  a 
knowledge  of  them  depends  on  observation,  which  teaches 
us  nothing  of  their  origin ;  but  so  soon  as  I  have  learned 
from  other  sources  that  there  is  a  God ;  that  there  is  a 
being,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  wisdom, 
power,  and  all  his  attributes ;  and  when  I  know  the  rela- 
tions of  this  being  to  the  universe,  his  workmanship,  then 
I  perceive  that  this  process  of  change  from  acorn  to  oak  is 


514  MY  LIFE  AND   TIMES. 

liis  mode  of  working — tliat  everv  stc])  in  the  process  is  the 
^vorking  of  an  almighty  and  all-wise  God.  And  so  when 
I  come  as  a  believer  in  God  to  the  study  of  those  things 
which  I  now  begin  to  call  the  works  of  God,  I  find  him 
jjresent  in  a  way  that  I  had  never  imagined  before.  When 
I  look  at  the  qnivering  leaf  growing  nnder  the  influences 
of  the  sunshine  and  the  rain,  I  see  before  me  God's  power 
ejEfecting  the  W'Onderful  changes  that  are  there  taking 
l^lace;  I  see  the  present  power  of  that  God  directing  and 
guiding  its  faintest  movement.  When  I  see  the  dew-drop 
resting  on  the  blade  of  grass,  reflecting  from  its  surface 
the  prismatic  hues,  I  see  not  proofs  of  the  existence  of  a 
distant  or  absent  God ;  I  see  his  hand  there  immediately 
jiresent,  holding  the  ^^articles  together  for  my  delight  as 
one  of  his  ends,  causing  the  Avhite  ray  of  light  to  be 
broken  up  into  the  marvellous  rainbow  colors  so  as  to 
charm  the  sense  of  sight:  it  is  God  who  is  doing  this  be- 
fore  me.  As  I  look  abroad  upon  the  operations  of  nature 
on  a  grander  scale — when  I  stand  in  the  presence  of  the 
mountain  and  behold  the  veil  of  blinding  snow  on  its 
summit,  I  see  there  the  power  of  God  holding  particle  to 
particle  and  producing  that  which  fills  my  mind  with 
awe;  that  w^hich  expands  my  soul  and  gives  me  a  new 
and  an  exalted  idea  of  the  mighty  Creator — not  in  whom 
w^e  did  live,  but  in  whom  we  now  live,  and  in  whom  we 
have  our  being,  wdio  is  now  causing  every  pulse  beat  in 
this  wrist,  who  is  now  giving  me  the  power  to  be  heard 
by  you.  He  is  a  God  near  at  hand ;  he  is  not  a  God  afar 
off.  This,  I  say,  is  the  Christian's  view  of  God  and  his 
relation  to  his  works.  Can  you  imagine,  then,  if  this  is 
true  and  not  a  mere  fancy,  can  you  imagine  that  when  I^ 
so  believing,  speak  of  evolution,  or  when  any  right-think- 
ing man  speaks  of  it,  he  is  pushing  God  away  and  doing 
that  which  tends  to  materialism,  or  to  a  blank  denial  of 
the  existence  of  the  Almighty  (  Xeed  I  now  undertake 
further  to  prove  that  evolution  is  not  antagonistic  to  cre- 
ation ;  that  evolution  is  creation  ? 

''If  anything  more  is  needed,  let  me  ask  you  again  the 
question  which  I  have  heard  so  frequently  during  the 
last  day  or  two,  'Who  made  you  V  I  do  not  mean,  who 
made,  several  ages  ago,  those  from  whom  you  have  de- 


CONTEOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  515 

scended,  but,  who  made  you  ?  Are  you  an  orphan  so  far 
as  the  Creator  of  the  universe  is  concerned,  or  is  God  your 
Father  and  Creator '?  Are  you  going  to  allow  some  one  to 
come  here  and  say  that  because  he  did  not  create  you  im- 
mediately, he  did  not  create  you  at  all  ?  i^o ;  you  have 
as  much  claim  to  him  as  your  Father  as  Adam  had.  But 
did  he  make  you  immediately  ?  Oh  !  no,  he  did  not.  Yet, 
for  all  this,  no  one  is  willing  to  give  up  his  right  to  say, 
'Our  Father'  and  'our  Creator.'  Creation  is  not  antago- 
nistic to  our  evolution.  God  may  create  out  of  nothing; 
but  so  far  as  the  daily  operations  of  his  hands  are  con- 
cerned, we  see  that  he  does  not  create  out  of  nothing,  but 
out  of  something  that  he  had  previously  brought  out  of 
nothing.  But  he  is  not  the  less  creating  before  our  eyes. 
There  is  no  antagonism  between  creation  and  that  mode 
of  creation  which  we  call  evolution. 

"You  will  now  better  understand  why  I  should  say  that 
I  want  no  change  in  the  expression  of  the  Confession, 
'After  God  had  made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man.' 
The  only  difference  between  us  is  as  to  the  probable  mode 
of  that  creation. 

''I  wish  in  the  next  place  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  constantly  reiterated  that  I  subordinated 
scripture  to  science.  The  only  answer  that  I  have  for  that 
statement  is  that  it  is  not  true.  I  cannot  give  any  explan- 
ation of  the  matter  except  just  that.  I  say  that  there  is 
not  a  word  that  I  ever  spoke,  or  wrote,  or  thought,  that 
would  bear  that  construction ;  and  any  one  who  has  read 
what  I  have  written  ought  to  know  that  it  is  not  true.  I 
have  always  sought  to  know  what  the  scriptures  teach 
with  regard  to  any  matter  that  I  was  examining;  and 
Avhen  I  have  found  the  meaning  of  the  scriptures,  I  have 
accepted  that  as  final.  I  say  again  that  there  is  not  a 
syllable  I  ever  uttered,  or  a  word  I  ever  spoke,  that  could 
even  remotely  sanction  any  such  construction.  When  I 
said  that  I  believed  it  to  be  probably  true  that  Adam's 
body  was  included  in  the  method  of  mediate  creation,  it 
was  only  after  I  had  shown  that  it  might  not  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  sacred  scriptures.  [Here  a  motion  was 
made  that  the  Synod  adjourn.    Lost  by  a  large  majority.] 

^'Hastening  on  as  rapidly  as  I  can,  and  omitting  many 


516  MY  LIFE   AND  TIIMES. 

tilings,  I  will  take  up  a  sample  of  the  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  my  views.  'You  are  utterly  unscientific,'  1 
am  told,  'in  your  statement  that  Adam,  as  to  his  body,  was 
derived  from  boast  ancestors.'  That  is  about  the  way  it  is 
put.  I  do  not  think  that  all  who  use  this  language  mean 
thereby  to  excite  disgust  or  contempt  towards  me.  But 
when  I  say  that  Adam,  as  to  his  body,  may  have  been  a 
lineal  descendant  of  the  higher  forms  of  mammalian  life, 
I  believe  it  because  I  think  it  in  accord  with  God's  usual 
plan  as  I  find  it  in  the  case  of  other  animals.  'When  you 
come  to  the  soul  of  Adam,  you  are  guilty  of  a  breach  of 
continuity;  and  when  you  come  to  Eve,  instead  of  be- 
lieving that  she  descended  from  the  lower  animals,  you 
say  that  she  was  created  in  a  supernatural  way.  There- 
fore, you  are  talking  nonsense ;  you  contradict  yourself ; 
jou  are  doing  that  which  is  unscientific ;  you  are  making 
a  muddle  and  a  jumble.  Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that 
God  made  man,  male  and  female,  and  that  he  created 
them  in  the  same  way  ?    You  say  there  are  two  ways.' 

"Why  do  I  say  so?  I  say  part  of  what  I  do  because 
God  tells  me  so  plainly  in  his  word ;  I  say  the  other  part 
because,  his  word  being  silent,  he  has  allowed  me  to  learn 
its  probable  truth  from  a  study  of  his  works.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it  unscientific  to  believe  in  miracles,  or  that  the  Al- 
mighty God,  who  chooses  to  effect  certain  purposes  in 
one  way  now,  ties  himself  to  that  way,  and  that  he  can 
never  effect  the  same  purpose  in  another  way.  I  do  not 
think  it  unscientific  to  believe  that  God  can  make  wine 
l>y  causing  the  grapes  to  grow  on  the  vine,  and  the  juice 
to  be  expressed  and  to  ferment,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
believe  that  he  can  also  make  it  even  better  without  that 
which  is  his  ordinary  process.  If  that  is  making  a  mud- 
dle and  a  jundile,  I  am  satisfied  to  make  it.  It  may  bo 
making  a  botch  and  doing  what  is  very  ridiculous  to  say 
that  while  fire  ordinarily  burns,  it  does  not  always  burn. 
I  remember  a  case  where  fire  did  not  burn.  Don't  you  ? 
Is  that  unscientific?  If  it  is,  I  am  content  to  be  un- 
scientific. Why  do  I  say  that  there  are  two  different 
ways  as  to  the  crea<:ion  of  the  bodies  of  Adam  and  Eve  '. 
Because  I  find  in  the  Bible  no  expression  which  cer- 
tainly shows  the  mode  of  the  creation  of  Adam's  body. 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  517 

and  I  do  find  the  mode  of  the  creation  of  Eve's  body  and 
soul  clearly  set  forth.  It  is  not  the  ordinary  way,  and 
therefore  it  is  excluded  from  evolution.  Is  that  a  sub- 
ordination of  the  scriptures  to  science  to  accept  their 
plain  and  simple  declaration  ?  Again  they  say,  'If  true 
science  admits  of  no  change  or  exception,  how  can  you 
believe  that  God  made  the  first  man  '^  If  he  made  our 
parents  in  a  certain  way  and  their  parents  in  the  same 
way  for  all  time,  we  will  have  to  keep  going  back  forever 
before  we  arrive  at  the  origin.'  With  regard  to  that  mat- 
ter I  might  reply  that  such  an  objection  might  come 
from  a  certain  kind  of  so-called  science,  but  I  do  not  see 
how  it  can  come  from  a  Christian  believer.  The  same 
objection,  if  valid,  would  keep  one  who  believes  in  the 
possibility  of  miracles  from  believing  in  any  branch  of 
natural  science. 

''But  I  wish  to  say  that  what  is  involved  in  my  prob- 
able belief  as  to  the  creation  of  Adam,  has  been  the  belief 
of  the  church  of  Christ  from  the  earliest  ages  down  to  the 
present  time  as  to  the  creation  of  each  human  being. 
What  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches, 
with  but  few  exceptions,  until  very  recent  times  ?  What 
was  the  prevalent  belief  in  the  church  before  the  Refor- 
mation ?  It  is  that  doctrine  which  is  spoken  of  as  'cre- 
ationism.'  That  doctrine  represents  the  body  of  each 
human  being  as  derived  from  its  parents  by  natural  gen- 
eration— as  mediately  created ;  while  each  soul  is  im- 
mediately created,  and  is  imparted  to  the  derived  animal 
body  by  God's  direct  power.  By  one  mode  or  process  the 
animal  body  is  brought  into  existence,  then  by  an  entirely 
different  process  the  soul  is  brought  into  existence  and 
united  with  the  previously  formed  animal  body.  This  is 
not,  I  understand,  the  doctrine  of  the  professor  of  The- 
ology in  the  Columbia  Seminary ;  but  if  you  will  read 
any  work  on  theology  or  church  history,  you  will  see 
that  it  has  always  been  the  widely  prevalent  belief  of  the 
church.  And  you  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  this  fur- 
nishes an  exact  counterpart  of  the  suggestion  that  Adam's 
body  may  have  been  derived  from  ancestors,  while  his  soul 
was  immediately  created  and  inbreathed  by  God. 

"1  might  also  call  your  attention  to  the  wonderful  like- 


518  MY  LIFE   AND   TIMES. 

ness  that  exists  between  the  first  Adam  and  the  second 
Adam.  That  is  to  say,  in  the  origin  of  the  one  and  of 
the  other  there  has  been  a  mixture  of  the  natural  and  the 
supernatural,  of  creation  mediate  and  immediate.  How 
was  it  in  the  incarnation  of  our  adorable  Redeemer  I  He 
was  formed  as  to  his  body  of  the  substance  of  his  mother. 
He  grew  accordiuo-  to  the  laws  of  God  as  in  the  case  of 
an}  other  hunum  being.-  And  then,  whatever  may  be  true 
as  to  the  doctrine  of  creationism,  we  know  that  in  his  case 
there  was  superadded  that  other  nature,  the  nature  of  the 
Almighty  God.  There  was  plainly  that  admixture  of  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural  which  is  presumed  in  the 
hypothesis  which  I  have  been  inclined  to  believe  as  prob- 
ably true,  and  which  has  been  held  up  as  only  worthy  of 
withering  scorn. 

"Moderator,  I  am  told  that  in  the  contest  now  in 
progress  I  stand  alone ;  that  no  one  stands  beside  me,  or 
believes  with  me.  ]S"ow,  if  there  is  anything  for  which 
I  yearn,  after  the  love  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  my 
Saviour,  it  is  the  love  and  approbation  of  the  good,  the 
pure,  the  upright,  of  those  who  bear  the  image  of  God  in 
their  hearts.  And  I  know  that  isolation  is  desolation. 
But  if  I  must  stand  alone  in  defence  of  what  I  believe  to 
be  his  truth,  I  submit  to  the  decree  and  to  the  will  of  my 
God.  I  will  not  be  the  first  who  has  seemed  to  stand 
alone.  As  I  look  through  the  vistas  opened  before  me  by 
the  word  of  God,  I  see  the  forms  of  three  who  were  cast 
alone  into  the  furnace  of  fire,  heated  seven  times  more 
than  it  was  wont  to  be  heated.  But  as  I  look  again,  they 
are  not  alone,  for  four  are  walking  in  the  midst  of  the 
fire;  and  wdien  they  came  forth  from  that  furnace,  not 
even  the  smell  of  fire  had  passed  on  them.  I  remember 
also  that  when  an  apostle  was  once  called  to  stand  before 
Xero,  all  men  forsook  him ;  luit  yet  he  was  not  alone. 
As  I  look  in  another  direction,  I  see  a  form  standing- 
alone,  in  the  presence  of  a  mighty  emperor  and  the  princes 
of  the  empire,  and  saying,  all  alone  as  he  seemed  to  be, 
'With  regard  to  the  charges  against  me,  if  any  man  can 
prove  that  they  are  true  by  the  word  of  God,  I  will  repent 
and  recant ;  but  until  then,  here  T  stand ;  I  cannot  other- 
wise ;   God  help  me.     Amen.'     And  so  stand  I. 


COXTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  519 

"In  the  next  place,  we  are  told  that  evolution  is  to  be 
rejected  because  it  is  born  of  atheism.  It  is  said  that 
many  atheists  hold  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  there- 
fore it  is  not  true.  Darwin  was  not  an  atheist,  but  at  the 
same  time  he  was  not  a  believer  in  Ohristianitv.  But  how 
does  that  affect  the  truth  of  evolution  ^  On  the  other 
hand,  we  know  that  there  are  many  others  who  believe  in 
evolution  who  are  not  atheists.  If  others  say  it  leads  to 
atheism,  I  say  it  does  not ;  and  I  content  myself  with 
pronoimcing  their  proposition  an  'unverified  hypothesis.' 

"Then  you  are  told  that  it  assigns  a  beastly  origin  to 
man.  Well,  we  need  not  be  so  proud.  We  have  bodies 
exactly  like  the  beasts,  if  you  choose  to  call  them  so.  Our 
muscles  are  arranged  in  the  same  way.  The  heart  beats 
in  the  dog  just  as  it  beats  in  me.  His  legs  are  made  like 
mine  and  like  my  arms.  He  has  a  brain  in  his  skull  and 
a  spinal  marrow.  He  digests  as  I  do.  He  does  every- 
thing in  the  same  way.  Again,  as  to  our  instincts  being- 
shocked,  what  is  there  in  red  clay  that  is  so  much  more 
noble  than  the  most  highly  organized  form  God  had  made 
up  to  the  time  of  Adam  ?  You  have  only  the  choice  be- 
tween red  clay  and  the  highest  and  best  thing  that  was 
produced  by  the  power  of  God  up  to  the  time  of  man's 
existence.  And  if  your  decision  is  to  be  controlled  by 
your  prejudices  and  your  instincts  and  your  feelings,  let 
me  ask  you,  Moderator,  how  do  you  like  to  think  that  the 
negro  is  your  brother  ?  Is  your  instinct  shocked  by  that  ? 
Will  you  follow  instincts  in  one  case  and  not  follow  them 
in  another  ? 

"Without  dwelling  longer  on  that  point,  let  me  call 
your  attention  to  an  objection  urged  against  the  theory  as 
to  man's  body.  We  are  told  that,  according  to  the  re- 
ceived interpretation  of  the  scriptures,  he  was  made  of 
inorganic  dust.  (Of  course,  when  I  say  that  man's  body 
may  have  been  made  of  organic  dust,  I  mean  God  may 
have  chosen  to  derive  man's  body  from  a  previously  ex- 
isting animal  form.)  You  are  told  that  the  idea  of 
mediate  creation  is  precluded  by  the  received  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible.  Well,  it  is  not  precluded  by  anything 
said  in  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as  we 
have  already  seen.    Outside  our  standards,  I  suppose  that 


520  MY   LIFE   AXD   TIMES. 

some  of  the  most  widely  'prevailiiii;-  and  recognized  views^ 
of  the  meaning-  of  the  seriptnres  are  set  forth  in  the  little 
Catechism,  already  frequently  quoted  during  this  dis- 
cussion. What  is  said  there  on  this  subject  ^  Let  us  see. 
'Who  made  you  V  ^God.'  Did  he  make  you  mediately 
or  immediately  ?  I  suppose  you  would  say,  God  did  not 
make  me  immediately,  but  mediately,  through  my  an- 
cestors. 'Of  what  did  he  make  you  f  'Of  the  dust  of 
the  ground.'  Mediately  or  immediately  ?  Now,  if  you 
say  it  w^as  mediate  in  the  one  case,  why  may  you  not  at 
least  say  it  may  have  been  mediate  in  the  other  ?  In  Ec- 
clesiastes  xii.  7,  we  learn  that  each  one  of  us  is  made  of 
the  dust  of  the  earth ;  and  yet  each  one  of  us  has  come 
from  a  long  line  of  ancestors.  But  that  language  is  figur- 
ative, you  say ;  and  it  is  true,  as  has  been  said  on  this 
floor,  that  every  figure  must  have  its  literal  basis.  Now^, 
you  say  that  the  basis  for  the  figure  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  Adam's  body  was  formed  of  the  literal  dust  of 
the  ground.  How  do  you  know  that  ?  Suppose  I  say  you 
may  go  back  a  generation  or  so  farther  for  the  basis  of 
the  figure,  wdiy  not  ?  According  to  your  own  exegesis,  you 
can  go  back  from  yourself  to  Adam.  Why  can't  you  go 
back  a  step  farther  and  farther,  until  you  reach  the  very 
beginning  of  all  organic  life,  when  inorganic  matter  was 
organized  and  vivified  ?  If  you  may  go  back  to  Adam  for 
the  basis  of  your  figure,  what  right  have  you  to  say  that  I 
must  stop  there,  and  may  not  go  still  farther  in  search  of 
the  true  basis  ?  What  right  have  you  to  say  that  I  shall 
stop  at  any  particular  place  ?" 

At  this  point,  another  motion  was  made  to  adjourn, 
which,  a  division  being  had,  w^as  lost. 

"j^ext,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  formidable  ob- 
jection urged  by  Mr.  Pratt,  derived  from  the  genealogy 
of  the  Saviour  as  it  is  presented  in  the  third  chapter  of 
the  gospel  according  to  St.  Luke:  'Which  w^as  the  son  of 
Methusaleh,  which  was  the  son  of  Enoch.  .  .  .  which 
was  the  son  of  Adam,  which  was  the  son  of  God.'  jSTow,  let 
us  read  that  genealogy  in  accordance  with  the  interpreta- 
tion which  Mr.  Pratt  has  insisted  on,  and  wouldn't  it  be : 
'Which  was  the  son  of  Adam,  which  was  the  son  of — ' 
what  ?    Of  what  shall  I  say  ?    Go  back  to  the  Catechism, 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  521 

what  is  the  substance  of  which  Adam  was  made  ?  If  it 
is  true  that  a  belief  that  Adam's  body  may  have  been  de- 
rived from  previously  existing  animal  forms  requires  you 
to  read,  as  you  have  been  told,  'Which  was  the  son  of 
Adaiu,  which  was  the  son  of  a  beast,'  is  it  not  equally  true 
that  Mr.  Pratt's  belief  requires  you  to  read,  'Which  was 
the  son  of  red  clay  V  Is  that  the  way  in  which  you  would 
reason  'i  Well,  it  is  not  the  way.  Moderator,  in  which  I 
would  reason.  You  know,  and  it  would  seem  that  every- 
body must  know,  that  this  genealogy  cannot  have  the 
remotest  bearing  on  the  question  as  to  how  it  pleased  God 
to  form  the  body  of  Adam.  Would  Adain  be  less  the  son 
of  God  if  God  formed  him  of  one  substance  rather  than 
another  ?  Our  venerable  friend  [Dr.  Frierson]  tells  us 
that  we  are  not  certain  about  the  meaning  of  anything 
contained  in  the  Bible.  Still  I  am  persuaded  that  my 
friend  and  I  would  agToe  as  to  tJie  meaning  of  this  geneal- 
ogy, that  going  back  step  by  step  we  at  length  come  to  the 
first  great  Cause,  the  God  and  Father  of  us  all,  the  om- 
nipresent and  almighty  God,  the  source  of  all  being;  the 
f ramer  of  Adam's  body  and  the  Father  of  his  spirit ;  and, 
through  him,  of  all  his  descendants  to  the  latest  genera- 
tion." 

At  12:15  o'clock  Dr.  Woodrow,  having  been  speaking 
steadily  and  holding  the  close  attention  of  his  audience 
since  7 :30  o'clock,  closed,  and  announced  that  he  was 
exhausted,  and  could  not  resume  until  morning.  A  mo- 
tion was  made  to  adjourn,  which  was  carried,  Dr.  Wood- 
row  having  the  floor. 

ISText  evening  (the  morning  having  been  devoted  to  re- 
plies to  his  remarks).  Dr.  Woodrow  resuming  the  argu- 
ment, said :  "Moderator,  you  need  not  be  at  all  alarmed 
at  this  formidable  array  of  books,  for  I  do  not  intend  to 
read  them  to  you.  I  had  intended  to  read  extracts  from 
them  on  certain  points ;  for  example,  from  this  work  by 
President  Schmid,  to  show  who  are  evolutionists ;  but  I 
think  probably  it  is  not  necessary.  I  had  also  intended  to 
read  an  extract  or  two  from  this  work  on  The  Origin  of 
the  World,  by  the  anti-evolutionist.  Principal  Dawson,  to 
show  that  in  some  important  particulars  the  views  of  the 
author  correspond  precisely  with  those  set  forth  in  my 


522  MY   LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

address.  I  had  intonded  to  read  from  Guyot's  book  on 
Creation,  to  show  that  his  teachings  upon  points  touching 
the  scriptures  are  identical  with  niino;  and  that  whilo  1 
do  not  know  what  his  views  were  with  regard  to  cvohition, 
yet  that  is  a  matter  of  entire  indifference,  for  ho  has  dis- 
tinctly set  forth  in  the  work  that  the  question,  so  far  as 
evolution  is  concerned  (within  the  limits  of  my  defini- 
tion), is  an  entirely  open  one.  I  had  intended  to  read 
from  Truths  and  Untruths  of  Evolution,  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Drury,  lecturer  before  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
strong  support  the  theory  received  from  those  high  in 
that  church ;  and  particularly  from  the  teachings  of  one 
of  his  predecessors  in  the  lectureship,  the  learned  Tayler 
Lewis,  who,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  was  an 
avowed  anti-evolutionist,  maintained  that  it  was  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  scriptures  to  entertain  the  views  of 
the  theory  which  I  do,  and  of  evolution  in  all  the  various 
directions  which  I  point  out.  But  I  shall  not  burden  you 
with  all  this.  Nor  shall  I  read  to  you  a  letter  which  I 
have  in  my  pocket  from  the  professor  of  Theology  in  the 
Allegheny  Theological  Seminary  [Rev.  Dr.  S.  H.  Kel- 
logg], in  which  he  makes  it  appear  that  in  all  the  scrip- 
tural points  involved  his  views  are  identical  in  every  par- 
ticular with  mine.  I  may  say,  however,  while  on  this 
point,  wath  regard  to  the  chairs  of  theology,  that  evolu- 
tion is  discussed  by  every  professor  of  theology  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  whether  North  or  South ;  and  there 
is  a  good  deal  about  it  in  the  text-book  used  by  the  profes- 
sor of  Theology  in  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary. 
I  am  not  singular,  therefore,  you  will  observe.  Moderator, 
in  my  course." 

"It  has  been  charged  that  my  ])rinci]ile  of  interpreta- 
tion makes  out  of  the  scripture  a  nose  of  wax."  He  read 
from  the  Confession  tlie  princi])les  of  interpretation  he 
had  taught.  "All  things  in  scripture  are  not  plain  to  all, 
but  whatever  concerns  the  i)lan  of  salvation  is  so  plain  and 
clear  that  all  can  know  it.  The  infallible  rule  for  the  in- 
terpretation of  scripture  is  scripture  itself.  I  have  never 
taught  anything  else.  The  inference  of  the  minority  re- 
port is  not  only  that  there  is  a  higher  and  better  sense  of 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIEISrCE.  523 

scripture  than  that  contained  in  the  standards,  but  that 
when  there  is  in  the  standards  that  which  a  teacher  or 
preacher  does  not  believe,  he  is  still  bound  to  preach  and 
teach  it!" 

Dr.  Woodrow  proceeded  :  "I  am  charged  with  a  distinct 
offence.  I  could  have  been  and  should  have  been  tried  be- 
fore the  presbvtery  or  Board  of  Directors.  I  therefore 
<?lial]enge  all  who  believe  that  I  have  been  g'uilty  of  teach- 
ing matters  contrary  to  scripture  to  table  charges  against 
me  before  some  tribunal  that  has  the  power  and  the  right 
to  try  me.  I  demand  that  they  do  so,  or  I  demand  if  they 
do  not  do  it,  that  no  mouth  shall  be  opened  against  me  in 
respect  of  this  matter,  at  the  risk  of  being  recreant  to  a 
;sacred  trust.  [Low  murmur  of  "Good."]  If  any  have 
reasons  to  believe  that  1  have  done  any  evil,  I  am  ready 
to  answer  before  any  competent  tribunal.  It  may  seem 
a  light  thing  to  some  to  be  heralded  over  the  world  as  an 
infidel,  to  be  charged  almost  with  having  committed  the 
unpardonable  sin,  so  that  doubt  is  expressed  whether  it 
is  right  to  pray  for  him.  But  I  do  not  believe  Synod  will 
countenance  any  such  view,  persecute  me,  lynch  me,  with- 
out a  trial." 

Dr.  Woodrow  referred  to  the  commendation  of  the 
course  of  the  church  toward  Galileo.  "It  has  been  argued 
that  the  church  was  not  responsible  for  the  persecution 
of  Galileo,  that  science  did  it.  It  was  indeed  science,  but 
science  in  the  church,  where  it  has  no  business  to  be, 
working  through  ecclesiastics.  It  has  been  further  argued 
that,  as  Galileo  was  employed  by  the  church,  it  had  a 
right  to  prevent  his  teaching  doctrines  contrary  to  her 
beliefs  and  her  faith.  As  a  matter  of  fact  Galileo  was  not 
at  any  time  under  the  control  of  the  church.  He  was 
professor  in  the  University  of  Pisa,  and  only  under  the 
control  of  the  church  to  the  extent  that  the  church  then 
claimed  to  control  everything.  The  church  had  its  scien- 
tific theory,  and  it  was  because  of  that  that  the  church 
committed  such  fearful  error. 

"There  is  one  thing,  ]\[oderator,  which  has  been  used 
during  the  discussion  to  which  it  is  scarcely  worth  while 
to  allude;  but  as  no  little  stress  was  laid  on  it  in  the  way 
■of  appealing  to  the  feelings,  perhaps  I  should  say  just  a 


524  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

few  words  about  it.  Yon  were  told  that  the  science  of 
evolution,  and  all  those  bad  things  that  were  said  about  it, 
were  not  fit  to  be  taught  in  a  theological  seminary,  because 
they  would  be  of  no  practical  use  to  a  minister  when  he 
was  called  to  the  bedside  of  a  dying  saint  or  a  dying  sin- 
ner. You  were  asked  what  comfort  or  what  guidance  the 
dying  man  would  receive  from  a  discussion  of  the  origin 
of  man's  l)ody,  or  any  unproved  hypothesis  connected  with 
the  subject.  Is  this  a  proper  test  of  what  shall  be  taught 
in  a  theological  seminary  'i  Then  you  must  put  a  stop  to 
Professor  Hemphill's  teachings ;  for  what  comfort  or 
guidance  will  a  dying  man  derive  from  listening  to  the 
conjugation  of  a  Hebrew  verb  at  his  bedside  ?  And  so 
with  a  large  part  of  the  auxiliary  instructions  in  every 
seminary  course.  But  I  beg  pardon.  Moderator,  for  tak- 
ing up  your  time  with  this ;  I  have  alluded  to  it  only  to 
ask  you  to  think  what  such  an  argument  is  worth. 

"I  have  already  intimated  that  in  my  opinion  evolu- 
tion, its  truth  or  falsity,  is  a  matter  of  extremely  small 
importance.  I  think  that,  as  regards  your  Christian  char- 
acter, it  does  not  make  the  slightest  difference  whether 
you  believe  in  evolution  or  not.  I  have  said  directly  and 
by  implication  over  and  over  again  that  the  church  may 
not  teach  science,  even  what  would  be  admitted  by  all  to 
be  true  science,  so  far  as  such  teaching  would  imply  that 
that  science  is  sanctioned  by  the  church.  It  makes  no  dif- 
ference, as  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  church, 
whether  one  believes  the  Ptolemaic  doctrine  of  the  solar 
system,  or  whether  he  believes  the  earth  to  be  round  or 
flat,  or,  as  I  think,  whether  he  regards  evolution  to  be 
probably  true  or  an  unverified  hypothesis.  Scientific  be- 
liefs, even  those  which  are  in  some  respects  of  the  highest 
consequence,  when  they  are  compared  with  the  doctrines 
with  which  the  church  of  God  is  concerned,  and  which 
alone  it  is  commissioned  to  teach,  are  of  utter  insignifi- 
cance. 

"It  is  for  you  now  to  keep  the  church  from  being  again 
dragged  down  from  its  sublime  and  sacred  work,  as  it 
has  so  often  been  in  the  past.  The  church  in  various 
ways  has  uttered  its  belief  on  one  scientific  question  after 
another  during  the  past;    and  I  think  I  am  riglit  when 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  525 

1  assert  that  every  time  the  church  has  undertaken  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  on  scientific  matters,  it  has  expressed  an 
opinion  that  was  wrong.  And  what,  Moderator,  is  the 
sad  result  ?  In  every  land  where  knowledo-e  prevails,  just 
in  proportion  frequently  to  the  extent  of  the  knowledge  is 
the  extent  of  the  rejection  of  the  holy  scriptures.  How 
could  it  well  be  otherwise  ?" 

"Moderator  and  brethren,  you  now  have  one  of  the 
grandest  opportunities  that  could  be  presented  of  main- 
taining the  pure  spirituality  and  exclusive  scriptural 
character  of  the  church. 

'"I  beseech  you  that  you  abstain  from  speaking  as  rulers 
in  the  church  of  Christ  that  which  the  Head  of  the  church 
has  not  authorized  you  in  his  word  to  speak.  I  beseech 
you  that  you  will  not  place  deadly  stumbling  blocks  in  the 
path  of  those  who  are  seeking  the  way  of  life  in  the  holy 
word.  For  the  sake  of  the  intelligent  ingenuous  youth 
of  the  land,  for  the  sake  of  the  greater  multitudes  who 
will  look  to  them  as  their  guides,  that  you  may  not  drive 
to  eternal  death  those  whom  you  would  fain  win  to  eternal 
blessedness,  I  beseech  you  that  you  will  not  tell  them  in 
Christ's  name  that  if  they  accept  the  teachings  of  God's 
works,  they  can  have  no  share  in  the  unspeakable  blessings 
offered  in  God's  word.  By  your  love  for  the  souls  of  your 
fellowmen,  by  your  loyalty  to  the  King  and  Lord  of  the 
church  and  your  desire  to  obey  him  by  keeping  within  the 
limits  which  he  has  prescribed  to  you,  as  you  would 
glorify  him  by  bringing  souls  into  his  kingdom,  I  beseech 
you  as  his  representatives  do  not  commit  him  to  what  he 
has  not  commanded,  but  preach  the  word  and  the  word 
alone." 

Result. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  on  the  adoption  of  the  ma- 
jority report,  which  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  fifty-two  to  forty- 
four.  The  minority  report  was  then  taken  up  and  lost 
by  a  vote  of  fifty-two  to  forty-four. 

Synod  then  took  a  recess  till  eight  o'clock.  On  reas- 
sembling. Rev.  J.  L.  Stevens  presented  the  following : 

Inasmuch  as  Dr.  \\'oodro\v  maintains  that  he  does  not  teach  the 
evolution  hypothesis,  as  set  forth  by  him  in  his  address,  in  the  sense 


52(1  :my  i/ife  axd  tidies. 

of  inculcating  it,  and  as  lie  does  not  sot  it  forth  as  a  demonstrated 
truth — 

Resolved,  By  this  Synod,  that,  witli  this  limitation  as  set  forth 
by  him,  they  do  not  see  that  he  transcends  the  duties  of  his  chair. 

Kev.  AV.  T.  Thom]is()ii,  T).  1).,  oiforcd  the  following'  as  a 
substitute : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Synod  the  teaching  of  evo- 
lution in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  except  in  a  purely 
expository  manner,  with  no  intention  of  inculcating  its  truth,  is 
hereby  disapproved. 

This  substitute  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  fifty  to  forty- 
five. 

Eev.  Dr.  Jnnkin  then  offered  the  following  paper,, 
whieh  was  unaninionsly  adoi)ted : 

In  connection  with  the  action  taken  in  regard  to  the  Columbia 
Seminary,  the  Synod  deems  it  proper  to  adopt,  which  is  hereby  done,, 
the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  hereby  expresses  its 
sincere  afiection  for  Dr.  Woodrow  personally,  its  appreciation  of 
the  purity  of  his  Christian  character,  its  admiration  of  his  distin- 
guished talents  and  of  his  scholarly  attainments,  both  in  theology 
and  science,  and  its  high  estimate  of  his  past  services. 

The  result  is  a  complete  victory  for  Dr.  Woodrow  and 
the  Board  of  Directors,  inasmuch  as  the  Synod  disa]> 
proves  what  he  never  had  the  remotest  idea  of  doinc;,  and 
authorizes  his  teaching-  in  "a  })urely  expository  manner" 
— the  only  way  in  wdiich  he  ever  has  taught  science  in  the 
Seminary,  viz.,  expounding  it  and  showing  its  connection 
with  revelation. 

Proceedings  of  the  Synod  of  Georcua. 

This  body  met  at  Marietta,  Gra.,  October  29th.  There 
were  present  forty-seven  ministers  and  forty-six  ruling 
elders.  The  subject  of  evolution  was  taken  u])  tlie  next 
day  and  referred  to  a  committee^  of  (deven.  Majority  and 
minority  reports  were  brought  in  as  f(dlows  : 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Stricklcr  submitted  for  the  majority  the 
following  resolutions : 


CONTKOVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  527 

1.  The  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Columbia  Theological 
Seminary  in  permitting  the  teaching  of  evolution  as  contained  in 
Dr.  Woodrow's  address  be  disapproved. 

2.  The  Synod  is  entirely  unwilling  that  this  theory  shovild  be 
tauglit  in  that  Seminary,  and  hereby,  as  one  of  the  controlling 
Synods  of  that  Seminary,  directs  the  board  to  take  whatever  steps 
may  be  necessary  to  prevent  it. 

Tlie  minoi'itv  report,  submitted  by  Hon.  Clifford  An- 
derson, was  as  follows : 

Resolved,  1.  That,  inasmuch  as  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  con- 
cerning the  earth,  the  lower  animals  and  the  body  of  man,  as  ad- 
vanced by  the  professor  of  Natural  Science  in  connection  with  Reve- 
lation, is  a  purely  scientific  and  extra-scriptural  hypothesis,  the 
church,  as  such,  is  not  called  upon  to  make  any  deliverance  con- 
cerning its  truth  or  falsity. 

2.  That,  in  view  of  the  deep  interest  in  this  matter  experienced  by 
all,  and  the  fears  experienced  by  some  lest  this  doctrine  of  evolution 
should  become  an  article  of  church  faith,  the  Synod  deems  it  ex- 
pedient to  say  that  the  church,  being  set  for  the  defence  of  the 
gospel  and  the  promulgation  of  scriptural  doctrines,  can  never 
without  transcending  her  proper  sphere  incorporate  into  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  any  of  the  hypotheses,  theories  or  systems  of  hu- 
man science. 

3.  That,  while  the  presentation  of  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  in 
relation  to  Scripture  falls  necessarily  within  the  scope  of  the  duties 
pertaining  to  the  Perkins  Professorship,  nevertheless  neither  this 
nor  any  other  scientific  hypothesis,  is,  or  can  be,  taught  in  our  The- 
ological Seminary  as  an  article  of  church  faith.  But  we  see  no 
objection  to  its  being  demonstrated,  as  it  has  been  done  by  Professor 
Woodrow,  that  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  as  defined  by  him  is  not 
contradictory  of  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God. 

4.  That,  in  view  of  the  above  considerations,  the  Synod  sees  no 
sufficient  reason  to  interfere  with  the  present  order  of  our  Theo- 
logical Seminary  as  determined  by  the  Board  of  Directors. 

T  give  the  debate  as  reported  in  tlie  Atlanta  Constitu- 
tion paper,  being,  however,  obliged  to  omit  some  of  the 
speeclies,  and  to  shorten  them  all.  Dr.  Boggs's  speech  ap- 
pears as  revised  by  himself,  and  I  specially  omit  nearly 
all  that  Dr.  Woodrow  said,  because  he  was  so  fully  re- 
ported in  the  Greenville  debate. 

Dr.  Striekler,  replying  to  Dr.  Woodrow,  said  this  was 
the  first  time  he  had  ever  engaged  in  the  discussions  of  a 


528  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

synod.  "Dr.  ^Voo(ll■ow  has  presented  ns  a  great  array  of 
scientists  who  believe  in  evolution.  But  these  scientists 
cannot  find  the  point  where  one  species  passes  out  of  an- 
other. Not  only  must  they  find  that  point,  but  also  where 
one  genus  is  evolved  out  of  another.  How  far  must  we 
follow  the  scientists  in  this  matter  ?  We  cannot  follow 
most  of  them  far,  or  we  will  drift  into  atheism.  It  is  time 
for  us  to  cry  a  halt  when  we  find  this  theory  infringing  on 
the  declaration  of  God's  word.  I  think  Dr.  Woodrow  has 
reached  that  point  in  his  teaching  on  this  question.  This 
doctrine  brings  odium  on  our  religion.  The  idea  of  evo- 
lution is  horrible  to  thousands  of  people,  just  as  you,  sir, 
say  it  was  once  horrible  to  you.  Dr.  Woodrow  refers  to 
the  animal  food  that  we  eat,  and  draws  from  that  an 
analogy  which  I  do  not  think  will  hold  good.  It  is  not  the 
thought  of  brute  matter  in  our  bodies.  We  all  know  that 
to  be  true.  But  we  shrink  from  the  thought  that  we 
evolved  from  the  brute  and  retained  the  brute  nature. 
This  theory  is  unchristian.  It  had  its  birth  in  enmity  to 
Christianity.  It  was  fostered  and  formulated  by  such 
men  as  Darwin  and  Huxley,  enemies  to  our  faith.  Its 
advocates  use  it  to  prove  the  non-existence  of  God.  They 
go  back  through  the  long  stages  of  evolution  until  they 
come  to  the  one  atom  from  which  the  modern  evolutionist 
declares  he  could  evolve  a  world.  When  they  get  to  that 
one  little  atom  they  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is 
no  use  of  a  God  just  to  do  so  little  as  that.  If  you  believe 
that,  we  had  better  put  upon  the  banner  of  our  faith  an 
animal,  and  that  animal  an  ape.  You  had  better  write 
the  obituary  of  the  church.  If  you  teach  this  doctrine, 
you  cripple  me  and  every  one  of  us  who  tries  to  preach 
the  word  of  God." 

Dr.  Strickler  added :  "Even  if  we  could  prove  this 
theory,  we  ought  to  steer  clear  of  it  when  the  teaching  of 
it  would  do  so  much  injury."  He  then  referred  to  the 
condemnation  of  evolution  by  the  Synods  of  Memphis, 
Tennessee,  and  Kentucky.  "And  what  did  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina  do?  I  am  at  liberty,"  he  said,  "to  read 
a  telegram  which  has  been  received  here."  He  then  read 
one  from  Dr.  Girardeau,  stating  that  the  action  of  the 
South  Carolina  Synod  was  not  a  compromise,  but  "dis- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  529 

tinctly  and  intentionally  anti-Woodrow."  ''How  far  is 
Dr.  Woodrow  going  in  tke  direction  of  evolution.  At 
first  lie  thought  the  theory  absolutely  false.  He  then 
thought  it  only  false.  Gradually  it  grew  upon  him,  until 
he  now  believes  it  probably  true.  He  is  on  the  march; 
where  will  he  stop  ?  He  has  made  pretty  rapid  progress, 
and  is  still  on  the  march.  But  the  minority  report  says 
evolution  can  never  go  into  our  creed.  Suppose  it  cannot, 
what  difference  does  it  make  if  it  goes  into  the  heads  of 
our  preachers  and  is  taught  ?  Venerable  men  have  said  to 
me  that  if  we  declare  this  theory  consistent  with  our  faith, 
we  will  unsettle  them.  The  style  of  interpretation  which 
makes  the  word  of  God  to  harmonize  with  this  theory  is  a 
dangerous  method  of  exegesis." 

Dr.  Strickler  continued:  ''The  Perkins  professorship 
was  established  to  evince  the  harmony  between  science 
and  religion.  But  Dr.  Woodrow  says  that  is  an  unattain- 
able end.  Do'  you  suppose  Judge  Perkins  ever  would 
have  made  this  princely  gift  if  he  had  supposed  it  would 
have  been  used  to  upset  our  cherished  belief,  derived  from 
a  reading  of  the  scriptures  in  their  purity  'i  We  are 
bound  to  respect  the  object  for  which  this  bequest  was 
made.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  if  Judge  Perkins  were 
alive  and  up  with  modern  science,  he  would  not  object  to 
such  a  use  of  his  money.  We  take  a  will  into  the  courts 
and  sacredly  observe  its  provisions ;  and  here  we  are 
confronted  with  the  question  whether  we  are  not  only 
failing  to  use  this  money  for  the  purpose  intended  by  the 
donor,  but  whether  we  have  not  really  turned  the  bequest 
to  the  use  of  disproving  just  what  it  was  intended  to 
prove." 

Rev.  Dr.  W.  E.  Boggs,  professor  of  Church  History 
and  Polity  in  the  Columbia  Seminary,  took  the  floor, 
saying  in  substance :  "The  Synod  has  been  listening  to  a 
very  earnest  speech  from  his  honored  brother.  Dr.  Strick- 
ler, It  was  evident  that  the  Doctor's  intention  is  good. 
His  faith  in  his  opinions  is  very  strong.  But  his  logic 
is  very  weak,  in  that  it  substitutes  the  vehement  reasser- 
tion  of  mere  human  opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Bible,  whereas  the  accuracy  of  those  very  uninspired 
opinions  is  the  matter  under  discussion.     Some  of  these 


530  MY   LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

Iniman  opinions  as  to  the  meanino-  of  texts  are  very  re^ 
spectable.  But  they  are  also  quite  ancient,  being  formed 
by  good  and  true  men  before  the  new  light  about  God's 
works  had  been  vouchsafed  to  mankind.  Now,  therefore, 
to  reassert  those  venerable  opinions  is  to  beg  the  question. 
Our  only  safe  plan  is  to  re-exainine  God's  infallible  word 
calmly,  dispassionately,  with  any  new  light  now  given  us. 
Not  to  do  so  is  like  Luther's  discussion  with  Zwingli, 
■when  he  kept  writing  on  the  talde,  'Hoc  est  corpus  meuin; 
Hoc  est  corpus  nieuiti/  whereas  the  meaning  of  those  same 
words  was  the  matter  under  discussion." 

The  speaker  then  alluded  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  devotion 
to  the  church ;  to  his  faithful  and  eminent  services ;  to 
his  Scottish  ancestors  who  had  not  refused  their  blood  in 
the  defence  of  Christ's  crown  and  covenant. 

Speaking  of  the  telegram  from  Dr.  Girardeau,  which 
asserted  that  the  recent  action  by  the  South  Carolina 
Synod  was  "distinctly  anti-Woodrow,"  he  wished  to  say 
that  while  entertaining  profound  regard  for  his  absent 
colleague,  he  felt  free  to  form  his  own  opinions  as  to  that 
action,  and  to  do  so  in  view  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 
Dr.  Girardeau  undoubtedly  believed  the  action  to  be 
"anti-Woodrow,"  but  what  are  the  facts  ?  The  majority 
re])ort  to  the  synod,  heartily  endorsing  Dr.  Woodrow's 
methods  of  dealing  with  evolution,  was  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  forty-four  yeas  to  fifty-two  nays ;  but  the  minority 
report,  which  disapproved  of  his  teaching,  had  also  been 
rejected  by  the  same  vote  exactly — forty-four  to  fifty-two. 
Then  a  paper  was  introduced,  prescribing  the  manner  in 
which  synod  wished  Dr.  Woodrow  to  handle  evolution. 
"If  the  facts  do  not  show  mutual  concessions  and  an  hon- 
orable compromise,  I  am  wholly  in  error.  But  these  are 
the  facts.     Let  them  speak. 

"Dr.  Strickler  asks,  ITow  far  are  we  to  follow  Darwin  ? 
Surely  all  of  us  understand  that  it  is  ])ossible  to  agree  with 
Darwin  in  some  of  his  scientific  teachings,  while  reject- 
ing and  abhorring  his  religious  opinions.  Surely  we  see 
that  a  Christian  might  consider  evolution  to  indicate 
God's  way  of  diversifying  the  types  of  animals  and  plants 
on  the  earth.  That  is  to  say,  such  a  Christian  scientist 
might  believe  that  God  occasionally  employs  natural  birth 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  5-jl 

to  introduce  a  new  form  of  life.  Darwin's  science  is  one 
matter,  and  his  religions  beliefs  or  disbeliefs  are  anotlier. 
Aristotle  was  a  heathen,  yet  Dr.  Strickler  does  not  scru- 
ple to  use  Aristotle's  rules  of  logic  in  the  preparation  of 
his  excellent  sermons.  All  the  world  is  supposed  to  know 
that  Darwin  was  descended  from  an  unbelieving  family. 
The  evidence  shows  that  he  was  an  unbeliever  long  before 
he  discovered  those  'laws'  or  principles  which,  as  he 
thought,  proved  'descent  wnth  modification.'  ISTeither  his 
father  nor  his  grandfather  was  acquainted  with  the  'laws' 
of  evolution  discovered  by  Darwin,  yet  they  were  unbe- 
lievers. 

"Dr.  Strickler  is  inclined  to  deny,  on  what  he  deems 
good  authority,  that  evolution  is  taught  at  Clarksville. 
Xow,  I  see  in  the  official  catalogue  of  that  University  that 
LeConte's  Geology  is  a  text-book.  I  know  that  book.  I 
love  its  distinguished  author.  He  was  my  teacher  in  col- 
lege, and  afterwards  he  was  a  consistent  member  of  the 
church  of  which  I  was  pastor.  At  my  request  he  taught 
with  great  ability  a  Bible-class  for  young  men.  He  has 
not  surrendered  his  faith  in  Christ ;  but  his  geology  is 
an  evolutionistic  book  from  cover  to  cover !  So  is  Dana's 
Geology,  also  in  the  catalogue,  l^ow,  will  some  one  tell 
me  how  such  books  can  be  used  without  teaching  evolu- 
tion ?  Our  brethren  will  be  in  a  dilemma,  too,  if  they 
change  their  text-books.  They  will  either  be  compelled  to 
give  up  geology,  or  to  use  text-books  that  are  out  of  date. 

"Dr.  Robert  Flint,  the  ablest  man  in  Scotland  perhaps, 
who  now  fills  the  chair  of  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Edinburgh,  follows  exactly  the  same  course  as  is  taken 
by  Dr.  Woodrow.  In  his  able  book  on  "Theism"  he 
argues  with  consummate  ability  to  show  that  all  of  Dar- 
win's 'laws  of  evolution,'  'heredity,'  'variability,'  'over- 
production with  struggle  for  existence,'  'natural  selection 
with  survival  of  the  fittest' — ^each  and  all  of  these  'laws,' 
or  'uniformities,'  demand  for  rational  explanation  Infi- 
nite Wisdom.  He  is  careful  to  add  that,  while  opposing 
and  rejecting  Darwin's  theology,  he  has  nothing  to  say 
against  Darwin's  science.  ]\[y  brethren  on  the  other  side 
of  this  question  are  good  men,  but  I  believe  Dr.  Flint's 
course  the  wiser. 


532  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

"This  plan  (of  detecting  the  false  theology  which  is 
mingled  with  other  elements  in  theories  intended  by  their 
authors  to  be  used  against  Christianity  and  refuting  the 
theology)  is  also  followed  by  Farrar — not  the  dean  of 
that  name — in  his  ^Bampton  Lectures.'  So  much  is  Dr. 
Woodrow's  plan  like  that  pursued  in  Farrar's  Critical 
History  of  Free  Thought  that  I  was  surprised  when  he 
told  me  that  he  had  never  read  that  masterly  defence  of 
Christianity.  I  have  been  accustomed  to  place  the  volume 
in  the  hands  of  friends  troubled  with  religious  doubts. 
Again  and  again  havie  I  been  told  that  they  consider  it 
among  the  ablest  defences  of  religion.  I  say  again  that 
this  plan  is  wiser  than  the  one  which  we  are  advised  to 
follow  here." 

The  speaker  said  that  he  desired  in  the  most  emphatic 
way  to  testify  before  all  to  the  great  personal  benefit  re- 
ceived from  Dr.  Woodrow's  method  of  dealing  with  diffi- 
cult questions  of  interpretation.  "First,  I  knew  him  as 
my  teacher  in  the  Seminary,  then  as  an  older  brother 
when  I  was  pastor  to  his  family,  and  now  as  my  senior  col- 
league in  the  Theological  Seminary.  A  more  reverent, 
believing  student  and  teacher  of  God's  holy  word,"  said 
he,  "I  have  never  known.  I  believe  that  none  living  ex- 
ceed him  in  devotion  to  God's  word  and  our  Confession 
of  Faith.  He  has  told  us  how  carefully,  how  long,  how  pa- 
tiently, he  has  studied  the  question  now  before  you ;  how 
he  has  withheld  decision  until  sufficient  light  has  come. 
For  doing  so  he  has  been  blamed  on  this  floor — I  think, 
wrongly.  He  is  cautious  by  nature.  The  scientific  mind 
is  cautions  in  forming  opinions.  And  what  shall  we  say 
to  this  believing,  prudent  scholar — this  student  both  of 
nature  and  the  Bible?  Can  we  tell  him  that  we  know 
better  than  he  does  ?  Have  we  studied  the  difficult  sub- 
ject for  years  and  years  as  he  has  studied  it  ?  Brethren, 
I  hope  we  will  go  slowly  in  matters  of  this  sort.  The 
church  has  compromised  herself  again  and  again  by  haste 
in  such  matters,  and  in  so  doing  she  has  unintentionally 
ruined  souls  whom  she  greatly  desired  to  save.  Let  us 
think  well  before  we  close  Dr.  Woodrow's  lips,  lest  men  be 
tempted  into  thinking  that  there  is  a  conflict  between 
science  and  the  Bible." 


COJSTTROVKKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  533 

Attorney-General  Clifford  Anderson  referred  to  the 
legal  question  raised  by  Dr.  Strickler.  He  read  the  deed, 
and  said  the  regulation  of  the  professorship  was  wholly 
in  the  discretion  of  the  directors  of  the  Seminary.  He 
saw  not  the  slightest  legal  difficulty  in  the  way.  He 
said  the  question  of  vital  importance  was  not  whether 
evolution  was  true  or  false,  but  whether  it  is  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God.  Some  brethren  insist  that  Ave  must 
settle  this  scientific  question,  but  the  church  has  no  more 
right  to  settle  a  question  of  science  than  a  question  in 
politics.  We  cannot  treat  scripture  literally  always,  or 
we  would  be  compelled  to  say  that  the  world  was  made  in 
six  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  "Is  the  language  that 
man  is  made  of  dust  any  plainer  than  that  which  tells  us 
that  the  sun  stood  still  when  Joshua  commanded  it  ?  A 
comparison  of  this  passage  with  others,  according  to  our 
admitted  rule,  will  show  that  it  is  not  literal  dust  that  is 
spoken  of.  I  care  nothing  for  evolution.  I  am  only  con- 
cerned about  the  upholding  of  God's  word,  and  I  am  not 
much  concerned  about  that.  Why  ?  Because  I  know  that 
God's  word  will  stand  anyway.  I  am  ready  to  say  to 
science:  Do  what  you  can;  God's  word  will  remain.  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  teaching  evolution,  but  I  do  want  the 
Perkins  Professor  to  teach  the  relation  between  religion 
and  science.  The  church,  if  it  closes  his  mouth,  will  con- 
fess that  it  cannot  grapple  with  these  great  questions.  If 
science  discovers  new  truths,  it  is  his  duty  to  examine 
them.  We  are  not  afraid.  Christ  is  our  Captain,  and  the 
Bible  our  guide." 

On  motion,  the  Synod  resolved  to  limit  the  further  de- 
bate to  three  hours.  Dr.  Woodrow  to  have  one.  Dr.  Clisby 
one,  and  Dr.  Strickler  one. 

Rev.  Dr.  Clisby  said  :  "What  are  you  going  to  do  ?  If 
you  silence  your  professor,  do  you  think  you  can  silence 
the  inquiries  that  are  being  made  everywhere  on  this  sub- 
ject ?  When  your  students  ask  him  how  they  shall  meet 
these  inquiries  when  they  go  out  to  preach,  he -can  only 
say,  "^I  cannot  tell  you,  my  mouth  is  closed.'  Will  you 
change  your  professor  ?  What  good  will  that  do,  when 
you  have  seen  that  the  almost  unanimous  verdict  of  men 
capable  of  filling  his  ehair  is,  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  right  ? 


53-i  MY   LIFE   AND  TIMEfe. 

As  a  last  resort,  will  you  abolish  the  professorship  ? 
Then  science  will  say,  you  dare  not  meet  us.  You  were 
brave  enough  when  the  battle  was  in  the  dim  realm  of 
nietajdiysics ;  now  that  it  is  transferred  to  the  clear  lield 
of  physics,  you  have  beaten  an  inglorious  retreat.  Athe- 
istic science !  We  are  warned  that  we  must  not  add  to  the 
word  of  God,  but  remember  that  it  is  a  two-edged  respon- 
sibility. If  we  declare  that  God  has  spoken  as  to  the  motle 
of  his  creation  where  he  has  not,  we  are  as  guilty  as  if  we 
said  he  has  not  spoken  where  he  has." 

Professor  Woodrow  rose  and  amid  the  profoundest 
silence  said :  ''JMr.  Moderator,  in  declining  the  privilege, 
if  that  is  what  you  call  it,  which  you  have  extended  to  me 
to  occupy  one  hour  of  your  time,  I  desire  to  express  my 
profound  appreciation  for  the  words  of  affection,  of  con- 
fidence and  of  admiration  with  which  most  of  the  speeches 
you  have  heard  have  superabounded.  The  admiration  I 
do  not  deserve.  I  claim  no  originality  for  the  discovery 
of  the  true  or  for  the  discovery  of  the  false.  I  wish  to 
say,  in  regard  to  the  frequent  assertion  of  my  not  being 
on  trial,  that  while  it  is  true  I  stand  here  as  one  of  you, 
yet  it  is  a  shame  and  an  outrage  that  I  can  say,  in  fact  and 
in  truth,  that  I  am  on  trial,  but  without  the  safeguard 
thrown  around  me  that  I  had  a  right  to  expect.  Here, 
months  after  I  have  been  accused  of  doing  that  which  is 
against  our  standards,  I  am  unchallenged  l)y  any  form  of 
legal  proceedings.  There  are  two  tribiuials  to  which  I 
am  amenable,  and  although  these  charges  are  constantly 
reiterated,  they  are  not  put  in  such  a  form  that  I  can  de- 
mand the  proof.  They  are  false ;  and  I  charge  that,  from 
this  time  forth,  if  any  presbyter  throughout  the  church 
shall  bring  such  accusation  in  other  than  the  due  form, 
he  must  stand  convicted  as  a  slanderer.  I  demand  a 
trial.  You  may  go  on  and  try  me  and  condemn  ine  by  in- 
direction if  you  will,  but  I  appeal  to  God  against  such 
injustice." 

Rev.  Dr.  Strickler  said :  ''I  deny  that  the  Synod  is  at- 
tempting to  arraign  itself  against  science.  Dr.  Woodrow 
ought  to  teach  science,  but  he  should  teach  it  only  to  the 
point  where  it  begins  to  impinge  on  the  word  of  God,  and 
no  further.    In  our  view,  his  teaching  on  evolution  passes 


COI^TEOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  535 

that  point.  He  may  teach  all  the  science  he  knows  about 
evolution  or  any  other  science  up  to  the  point  I  have 
indicated.  We  are  not  willing  as  our  agent  he  shall  say 
that  evolution  is  'probably  true.'  Does  he  teach  evolution  '( 
That  question  was  asked  this  afternoon  by  a  brother  who 
requested  a  categorical  answer.  'No  answer  was  given 
him.  If  Dr.  Woodrow  does  not  teach  evolution,  is  it  not 
easy  to  tell  us  so  'i  I  wnll  pause  if  any  one  knows  the  fact 
that  he  does  not.  Dr.  Woodrow's  theory  is  inconsistent 
with  the  statement  that  we  read  so  clearly,  that  God  made 
man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  If  the  Bible  had  meant 
to  tell  us  that  man  was  made  out  of  inorganic  dust,  how 
could  it  have  put  it  any  plainer  than  that  ?  We  have  been 
told  the  opinions  of  a  great  number  of  experts  in  science. 
There  are  experts  in  language  as  well  as  in  science.  They 
have  studied  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  and  I  do  not 
hud  any  difference  between  them.  They  all  say  dust 
means  dust.  The  ex])erts  of  science  are  brought  out  of 
their  sphere  into  this  held,  and  put  against  the  experts  in 
language,  to  find  a  new  meaning  for  these  words.  I  said 
that  I  did  not  know  any  scientific  man  wdio  agreed  with 
Dr.  Woodrow  on  this  question.  I  did  not  trust  my  own 
knowledge  on  this  question,  but  Dr.  Adams  and  I  sent  this 
telegram  to  Sir  William  Dawson  to  ascertain  what  he 
knew  about  it:  'Do  you  know  any  evolutionists  who  be- 
lieve simply  that  Adam  was  evolved,  but  that  Eve  was  cre- 
ated from  Adam's  rib.  If  so,  how  many  V  To-day  we 
received  an  answer.  Sir  William  Dawson  telegraphs  as 
follows:  'Don't  know  any  one  avoiding  the  text  difficulty 
in  that  way.' 

"The  Perkins  professorship  was  founded  to  evince  the 
harmony  of  science  and  God's  word.  Dr.  Woodrow  tells 
us  harmony  is  unattainable.  He  goes  so  far,  I  think,  as  to 
say  that  it  is  folly  to  seek  for  harmony.  The  conse- 
quences of  this  teaching  must  be  disastrous  to  the  Sem- 
inary. The  Synods  of  ISTashvillc',  of  Memphis,  of  Ken- 
tucky, have  withdrawn  from  its  support,  and  the  Synod 
of  South  Carolina,  right  at  its  home,  is  seriously  alien- 
ated from  it.  No  one  of  our  church  courts  has  acted 
which  has  not  condemned  it.  Give  him  permission  to 
teach  this  thing,  and  in  a  short  while  there  will  be  nobody 


536  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

there  to  teach.  The  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  At- 
lanta, one  of  our  most  important  churches,  has  declared 
that  it  will  not  give  a  cent  to  Education  until  this  question 
is  settled.  Other  churches  will  do  likewise.  They  do  not 
want  this  theory  taught  there.  You  have  many  large 
subscriptions  for  your  Seminary.  If  you  sanction  this 
theory,  you  will  probably  have  to  sue  for  most  of  them  in 
the  civil  courts." 

At  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Strickler's  remarks  the  ques- 
tion was  put  on  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report  and 
resulted:    ayes,  sixty;    nays,  twenty. 

Protest. — A  protest  against  this  action,  signed  by  ten 
of  the  members,  was  presented,  and  allowed  to  go  to 
record. 

The  grounds  of  the  protest  were  threefold:  (1),  That 
this  action  defeats  the  very  purpose  for  which  the  Perkins 
chair  was  established;  (2),  That  it  was  in  violation  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Seminary,  inasmuch  as  synod  at- 
tempts to  control  the  action  of  the  board  in  matters  en- 
trusted to  that  body  by  the  constitution;  (3),  That  it 
was  a  virtual  condemnation  of  the  Perkins  Professor 
without  according  him  a  trial  by  the  board,  as  provided  in 
the  constitution  of  the  Seminary. 

Reply. — The  Committee  on  the  Seminary  was  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  a  reply.  In  their  reply  the  committee 
affirm:  (1),  That  Synod  does  not  propose  to  prevent  the 
teaching  of  science  in  Columbia  Seminary,  but  only  the 
teaching  of  evolution  as  contained  in  the  address  of  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow;  (2),  That  the  action  was  not  unconsti- 
tutional, as  the  constitution  accords  the  Synod  the  power 
of  controlling  the  Seminary  through  the  board;  (3), 
That  its  action  has  particular  reference  to  the  Board  of 
Directors,  and  that  the  condemnation  of  Professor  Wood- 
row  was  only  incidental. 

The  other  two  controlling  Synods  of  Alabama  and 
South  Georgia  and  Florida  held  their  annual  meeting 
shortly  after  the  Synod  of  Georgia.  I  have  no  means  of 
reporting  the  debates  in  these  two  last  named  synods  ;  l)nt 
I  am  able  to  state  that  they  also  voted  to  instruct  the 
board  respecting  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  as  the  other  con- 
trolline  svnods  had  done. 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  537 

A  Meeting  of  the  Board. 

On  the  10th  of  December,  1884,  the  Board  of  Directors 
again  met.  To  a  large  extent,  it  was  composed  of  new 
members.  A  paper  was  j^resented  at  this  meeting,  refer- 
ring in  detail  to  the  action  of  the  fonr  synods  regarding 
Dr.  Woodrow's  address,  and  their  specific  directions  to 
the  board  to  prevent  his  giving  such  instructions  in  the 
Seminary  as  agreed  with  that  address ;  and  referring  also 
to  Dr.  Woodrow  as  having  announced  that  if  he  continued 
to  be  their  professor,  he  would  hereafter  teach  as  probably 
true  the  hypothesis  of  evolution.  The  paper  then  called 
for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  wait  on  Dr.  Wood- 
row  and  ask  for  his  resignation.  This  paper  was  adopted 
by  vote — ayes,  eight ;  noes,  four. 

Dr.  Woodrow  stated,  in  his  written  reply,  that  he  had 
no  desire  to  continue  to  teach  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  synods  which  control  the  Seminary,  since 
they  had  expressed  disapprobation  of  his  views ;  but  yet 
he  was  constrained  respectfully  to  decline  to  offer  his  res- 
ignation, for  the  reason  that  he  would  thereby  acquiesce 
in,  and  so  to  some  extent  recognize,  the  justice  and  right- 
fulness of  the  action  of  the  synods  on  which  they  based 
their  request,  which  he  regarded  as  illegal  in  form  and 
incorrect  in  fact. 

The  Professor  continued  :  "The  resolutions  adopted  by 
three  of  the  synods,  to  which  you  refer,  condemn  with 
greater  or  less  clearness  my  teaching  as  unscriptural  and 
contrary  to  our  standards,  and  this  condemnation  has  been 
expressed  without  judicial  investigation,  by  which  alone 
such  matters  can  be  authoritatively  determined.  I  hold, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  my  teachings,  so  far  as  they  are  ex- 
positions of  the  sacred  scriptures,  accord  perfectly  in  every 
particular  with  the  teachings  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Catechisms ;  and  so  far  as  they  relate  to  natural 
science,  do  not  on  any  point  contradict  the  sacred  scrip- 
tures as  interpreted  in  our  standards.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  I  respectfully  ask  that  you  proceed  to  determine  the 
questions  as  to  my  alleged  incompetence  and  unfaithful- 
ness in  teaching  what  is  contrary  to  the  sacred  scriptures 
as  interpreted  in  our  standards,  by  a  full  trial,  as  is  pro- 


538  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

vided  in  the  constitution  of  the  Seminary,  Section  2,  Arti- 
cle 11." 

The  paper  adopted  by  the  board  was : 

Inasmuch  as  the  Rev.  Dr.  -James  VVoodrow,  Perkins  Professor, 
has  declined  to  appear  before  the  Board  of  Directors  to  show  cause 
why  he  should  not  be  removed  from  his  professorship;  and,  inas- 
much as  he  has  already  had  a  full  hearing  in  person  before  three  of 
the  Synods,  and  through  his  friends  and  advocates  before  the  fourth 
Synod;  and,  inasmuch  as  these  Synods  have  already  condemned  his 
views  and  teachings  on  the  subject  of  evolution;  and,  inasmuch  as, 
in  his  reply  to  the  committee  appointed  to  wait  upon  him.  Dr. 
Woodrow  declares  his  unwillingness  to  tender  his  resignation,  there- 
fore. 

Resolved,  1.  That  he  be,  and  hereby  is,  removed  from  his  pro- 
fessorship, according  to  the  authority  given  this  board.  (See  Con- 
stitution, Sec.  2,  Art.  11  and  13.) 

2.  That  the  secretary  be  directed  to  officially  notify  Dr.  Woodrow 
of  this  action. 

The  articles  in  the  constitution  referred  to  are : 

Article  11. — The  Board  of  Directors  shall  have  power  to  remove 
from  his  office  any  professor  who  shall  be  found  unfaithful  in  his 
trust,  or  incompetent  to  the  discharge  of  his  duties.  Should  his 
continuance  in  office  be  thought  highly  injurious  or  dangerous,  the 
board  may  suspend  him  temporarily  until  his  case  can  be  fully 
tried;  but  all  these  acts  shall  be  reported  to  the  Synods,  and  be 
subject  to  their  approval,  as  in  Article  5. 

Article  13. — The  board  shall  further  make  all  rules  and  regula- 
tions, and  generally  do  whatever  they  deem  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Seminary,  provided  it  shall  not  be  repugnant  to  this  Constitution, 
the  orders  of  the  Synods,  or  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

Thus,  without  being  lawfully  ciharged  with  the  com- 
mission of  any  offence,  without  the  legal  trial  provided  for 
in  the  constitution,  he  was  found  guilty,  condemned,  sen- 
tenced to  deposition  from  office. 

The  board  adjourns  to  meet  again  on  January  28, 
1885,  at  Augusta,  Ga. 

On  the  20th  of  December,  Dr.  Woodrow  wa-ites  to  them, 
and  forwards  to  be  read  at  their  meeting  notice  that  he 
intended  to  appeal  to  the  associated  synods,  not  that  he 
might  be  restored  to  office,  for  that  he  did  not  desire. 


COXTEOVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  539 

but  that  in  reviewing  the  board's  action,  they  may  order 
the  trial  which  has  hitherto  been  refused. 

It  now  became  the  duty  of  the  four  synods  controlling 
the  Seminary  to  consider  this  action  at  their  approaching 
meeting,  and  to  decide  whether  or  not  it  was  in  accordance 
with  the  constitution. 

A.N"OTiiER  Meeting  of  the  Board. 

Precisely  one  year  after  this  dismissal  of  Dr.  Woodrow 
from  his  professorship,  the  Board  of  Directors  met  again 
in  the  Seminary  Chapel  at  Columbia  on  the  10th  of  De- 
cember, 1885.  All  the  members  of  the  board  were  pres- 
ent, several  being  new  members,  in  place  of  some  wdiose 
terms  had  expired.  The  meeting  commenced  at  9  :30  the 
morning  of  the  10th,  and  continued  in  session,  with  brief 
intervals  for  dinner  and  supper,  until  1:30  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  11th.  Then  they  took  a  recess  until  9  :30  a.  m., 
and  continued  in  session  until  noon  of  the  11th,  when 
they  finally  adjourned.  Evidently  their  discussions  were 
warm.  The  Charleston  News  and  Courier  of  December 
12th  published  a  brief,  but  sufficiently  complete,  report 
of  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting,  which  I  make  use  of 
just  as  it  appeared. 

The  matter  of  chief  interest  before  the  board  was  the  Woodrow 
case.  At  the  opening  of  the  session  a  paper  was  adopted  which 
recognized  Dr.  Woodrow  as  still  the  legal  incumbent  of  the  Perkins 
chair  of  Natural  Science  as  applied  to  religion.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  action  of  the  Synods  had  nullified  the  effort  last  year  to 
remove  him,  the  treasurer  was  instructed  to  pay  him  his  salary  for 
the  past  year,  as  he  was  held  to  have  been  in  office  during  that 
time.  He  was  requested  to  state  to  the  board  whether  or  not  he 
would  comply,  in  his  teachings,  with  the  orders  of  the  Synods  last 
year,  prohibiting  the  teaching  of  his  views  of  evolution  in  the  Sem- 
inary. The  paper"  embracing  these  three  heads,  the  recognition  of 
his  possession  of  the  chair,  the  order  to  have  his  salary  paid,  and 
the  inquiry  as  to  his  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Synods,  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  seven  to  six,  the  South  Carolina 
and  Florida  directors  voting  solidly  for  it,  and  the  Georgia  and 
Alabama  members  being  equally  solid  against  it.  Pending  the  con- 
sideration of  this  paper,  a  resolution  had  been  presented  as  a  sub- 
stitute, declaring  that,  inasmuch  as  two  of  the  four  Synods  con- 
trolling the   Seminary  had  approved  his   removal   and  withdrawn 


540  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

their  endorsement  of  him,  he  was  constitutionally  disqualified.  This 
was  rejected,  six  votes  being  cast  for  and  seven  against  it. 

In  reply  to  the  resolution  adopted,  Dr.  Woodrow  stated  that  he 
would  abide  by  the  instructions  of  the  Synods. 

Immediately  after  this  reply  was  received,  a  resolution  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  five,  requesting  Dr.  Woodrow  to  resign 
in  order  to  stop  the  agitation,  and  promote  the  highest  interests  of 
the  Seminary.  This  resolution  was  dispatched  to  Dr.  Woodrow  at 
about  midnight.  He  replied  that  he  did  not  see  his  way  clear  to 
answer  the  request  at  present. 

Various  resolutions  were  then  presented  by  the  minority  in  order 
to  efltect  his  removal.  One  was  to  declare  the  Perkins  chair  vacant, 
and  another  to  suspend  him  from  his  professorship  until  his  trial 
before  the  Augusta  Presbytery  should  have  reached  a  decision.  But 
they  were  all  voted  down  by  the  inexorable  seven  to  six  on  consti- 
tutional grounds. 

At  1:30  a  recess  was  taken.  When  the  board  met,  at  9:30  A.  M., 
a  protest  was  presented  by  the  minority,  which  was  entered  on  the 
minutes  and  duly  answered  by  the  majority.  Before  the  board  ad- 
journed the  members  constituting  the  minority  asked  to  be  excused 
from  any  further  participation  in  the  proceedings  of  the  board.  It 
is  stated  that  they  prophesied  the  destruction  of  the  Seminary, 
threatened  the  withdrawal  of  the  Georgia  and  Alabama  Synods,  and 
predicted  that  many  students  would  at  once  leave  the  Seminary. 
There  are  only  about  twenty  left. 

The  members  of  the  majority  say  that  by  their  action  they  felt 
that  they  were  conforming  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Seminary  and 
the  direction  of  the  Synods.  They  expect  a  continuance  of  the  agi- 
tation against  Dr.  Woodrow  and  a  bitter  struggle.  It  was  supposed 
that  the  minority  were  opposing  evolution  and  not  Dr.  Woodrow, 
but  that  the  antipathy  extends  to  the  Perkins  Professor  seems  to  be 
established  by  the  fact  that,  when  he  agreed  not  to  teach  evolution, 
they  still  opposed  him  as  vehemently  as  ever.  The  majority  insist 
that  the  minority  could  reach  Dr.  Woodrow  by  presenting  charges 
against  him,  but  that  no  formal  accusation  looking  to  a  trial  was 
made  against  him,  although  it  was  invited. 

To  an  unecclesiastical  mind  the  situation  appears  to  be  this:  The 
Synods  forbid  Dr.  Woodrow  to  teach  his  theory  of  evolution.  He 
agrees  that  he  will  not  do  so,  but  proposes  to  solve  the  problem  by 
not  teaching  anything  whatever  on  the  subject.  The  Anti-W^oodrow 
people  are  not  content  with  this,  but  desire  that  the  professor  shall 
expound  evolution  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  theory.  It  is  alto- 
gether improbable  that  he  will  stultify  himself  by  doing  so.  Dr. 
Woodrow  expects  to  resume  his  duties  at  once.  He  went  to  the 
Seminary  to-day  to  meet  the  students  and  have  his  rooms  prepared. 


controversies  of  sciexce.  541 

Evolution  in  the  General  Assembly. 
The  evolution  controversy  having  agitated  not  only  the 
four  controlling  synods,  but  a  number  of  other  synods  and 
presbyteries  during  the  whole  of  the  years  1884  and  1885, 
now  passes  into  the  General  Assembly  of  1886,  which 
was  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Augusta.  There  are  seven  pres- 
byteries which  send  up  overtures  to  that  Assembly,  calling 
its  attention  in  one  form  or  another  to  this  subject.  Im- 
mediately after  the  election  of  the  Moderator  and  Tem- 
porary Clerks,  the  resolution  offered  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
George  D.  Armstrong  was  unanimously  adopted,  calling 
on  the  Moderator  to  appoint  a  special  committee  upon 
overtures  from  several  presbyteries  which  had  been  pub- 
lished as  on  the  way  to  this  Assembly.  The  Moderator 
appointed  a  committee  of  thirteen,  of  which  Dr.  Arm- 
strong was  chairman. 

On  the  fourth  day  of  the  Assembly's  proceedings  the 
consideration  of  papers  from  the  Special  Committee  on 
Evolution  was  begun,  the  majority  report  of  the  com- 
mittee being  as  follows : 

To  the  several  overtures  on  the  subject  of  the  evolution  of  man 
sent  up  by  the  presbyteries,  the  General  Assembly  returns  answer  as 
follows,  viz. : 

The  church  remains  at  this  time  sincerely  convinced  that  the 
Scriptures,  as  truly  and  authoritatively  expounded  in  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  tej^ch — 

That  Adam  and  Eve  were  created,  body  and  soul,  by  immediate 
acts  of  Almighty  power,  thereby  preserving  a  perfect  race  unity; 

That  Adam's  body  was  directly  fashioned  by  Almighty  God,  with- 
out any  natural  animal  parentage  of  any  kind,  out  of  matter  pre- 
viously created  from  nothing; 

And  that  any  doctrine  at  variance  therewith  is  a  dangerous  error, 
inasmuch  as,  in  the  metliods  of  interpreting  Scripture,  it  must  de- 
mand, and,  in  the  consequences  which  by  fair  implication  it  will 
involve,  it  will  lead  to  the  denial  of  doctrines  fundamental  to  the 
faith.  Geo.  D.  Armstrong,  Chairman. 

Wm.  F.  Juxkin, 
R.  K.  Smoot, 
G.  B.  Stricklee, 
L.  C.  Vass,- 

A.  N.  HOLLIFIELD, 

]\I.  Van  Lear, 
R.  P..  Fulton, 
D.  N.  Kennedy. 


542  MY  LIFE  AND   TIMES. 

Kev.  T.  E.  Smith,  for  himself  and  William  Flinn,. 
D.  D.,  members  of  that  committee,  presented  a  minority 
report,  which  is  as  follows : 

We,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  Special  Committee  on  Evo- 
lution, recommend  that  the  General  Assembly  decline  to  make  a 
deliverance  on  the  subject:  1.  Because  the  answer  which  is  invoked 
by  those  overtures,  if  given,  would  violate  our  Constitution  (vide 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap,  xxxi.,  p.  4) .  2.  Because  the  word  of  God, 
as  interpreted  by  our  standards,  gives  the  faith  of  the  church.  3. 
Because  before  one  of  our  lower  courts  a  concrete  case  is  pending 
involving  the  matter  of  these  overtures. 

Wm.  Flinn, 
Theo.  E.  Smith. 

Also  the  following  paper  was  presented  by  the  Rev.  F.. 
L.  Fergnson,  another  member  of  the  committee : 

The  undersigned  member  of  your  Committee  on  Overtures  ore 
Evolution  would  recommend  the  appointment  of  a  special  committee 
to  draft  a  pastoral  letter  to  the  churches  and  presbyteries  of  the  As- 
sembly, embodying  the  following  points: 

1.  A  recognition  of  the  alarm  and  uneasiness  pervading  the  church 
on  account  of  the  evolution  discussion,  and  that  this  alarm  and  un- 
easiness are  not  unfounded. 

2.  A  reiteration  of  our  loyalty  to  the  symbols  as  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  determination  to  defend  them 
against  any  interpretation  which  would  mar  their  historic  sense  or 
contradict  any  traditional  doctrine  of  our  faith. 

3.  The  original  application  of  the  law  contained  therein  belongs 
to  the  presbyteries,  and  the  Assembly  considers  them  competent  for 
their  functions ;  neither  would  it  usurp  or  forestall  this  function, 
nor  hamper  them  in  its  performance  by  granting  any  in  thesi  de- 
liverance whicli  could  be  construed  into  an  anticipatory  exposition 
of  the  law,  but  could  not  be  of  binding  force. 

4.  The  Assembly  assures  its  presbyteries  that  the  highest  court  of 
the  church  will  be  ready,  at  the  proper  time,  to  uphold  and  endorse 
any  judicial  action  of  the  presbyteries  founded  on  the  constitutional 
law  of  the  church.  (Signed)  Francis  L.  Ferguson. 

A  motion  to  adopt  the  majority  report  was  snperseded 
by  a  motion  to  substitute  the  report  of  the  minority. 

The  reading  of  these  papers  was  called  for,  after  which 
the  discussion  upon  the  majority  report  was  opened  by 
Eev.  Dr.  G.  D.  Armstrong,  it  being  first  agreed  that  Dr. 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  543 

Woodrow,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Assembly,  should 
have  two  hours  to  present  his  views,  and  those  Avho  fa- 
vored the  minority  reports  should  have  two  hours  more ; 
that  afterward  those  who  favored  the  majority  report 
should  have  three  hours  to  present  their  view^s,  and  that 
the  chairman  might  have  half  an  hour  to  conclude. 

Dr.  Armstrong  said  the  question  before  the  Assembly 
came  in  due  form  and  order,  that  is,  on  overtures  from 
sundry  presbyteries.  "When  we  want  a  clear-cut  decision 
from  the  highest  court  it  is  best  obtainable  by  overtures. 
When  matters  come  up  in  judicial  form,  they  are  apt  to 
be  encumbered  with  side  issues,  and  it  is  difRcult  to  get 
a  clear-cut  decision.  It  is  said  it  may  hereafter  come  be- 
fore us  in  judicial  form,  but  of  that  we  are  not  assured." 

Dr.  Woodrow  rose  and  said:  ''Proceedings  have  been 
actually  begun  and  the  indictment  served." 

Dr.  Armstrong  replied :  "Well,  suppose  the  judicial 
case  should  reach  us,  it  will  certainly  be  complicated  with 
other  matters.  We  are  told  that  the  synods  which  have 
charge  of  the  Cohnnbia  Seminary  have  a  deep  interest  in 
this  question,  and  a  judicial  process  against  Dr.  Wood- 
row  is  already  begun  in  the  Augusta  Presbytery.  Let  the 
disturbed  synods  settle  it  their  own  way,  but  outside  of 
these  synods  we  have  a  question  to  settle.  Overtures  come 
to  us  from  all  over  the  church,  asking  us  to  give  a  distinct 
deliverance  that  will  give  them  peace.  There  is  general 
trouble  on  this  question  throughout  the  Avhole  church ; 
they  want  the  matter  satisfactorily  settled.  We  have  a 
personal  interest  in  this  matter  as  well  as  the  Presbytery 
of  Augusta.  I  say,  then,  it  not  only  comes  to  us  in  a 
legitimate  way,  but  in  the  best  way. 

"A  second  point  made  by  the  minority  is  that  this 
body  can  consider  only  ecclesiastical  matters.  They  do 
not  deny  the  right  of  the  Assembly  to  consider  this  ques- 
tion when  it  shall  come  up  in  judicial  form,  l^ow,  if  it  is 
ecclesiastical  when  in  judicial  form,  it  must  be  equally 
ecclesiastical  when  in  the  form  of  memorial  or  overture. 
The  word  ecclesiastical  is  used  in  contradistinction  to 
political  and  civil. 

"From  the  form  in  which  God  has  seen  fit  to  give  his 
revelation  to  us,  it  covers  in  many  cases  the  same  field  as 


544  MV   LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

science.  In  many  instances  it  must  cover  the  same 
ground  as  science,  both  physical  and  metaphysicah  The 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  tells  us  that  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  and  man.  This  is  a  religious  fact, 
which  God  wisely  embodies  in  his  revelation.  Science 
covers  the  same  ground.  When,  therefore,  science  at- 
tempts to  cover  the  same  ground  which  the  church  has 
preoc(ni])ied,  then  the  monstrous  claim  is  made  that  the 
church  is  intruding  on  science.  Within  the  last  century 
something  that  is  called  science  has  come  forward,  but 
all  that  is  called  science  does  not  deserve  the  name;  and 
jet  it  claims  to  determine  some  of  these  questions  wdiich 
the  church  has  always  considered  settled  by  revelation. 
Science  comes  in  and  squats  on  our  territory.  The  cheek 
of  the  thing  is  monstrous.  But  if  you  will  confine  your- 
self to  true  science,  there  is  no  possible  conflict  between 
revelation  and  science.  The  book  of  nature  and  the  book 
of  revelation  are  both  by  the  same  God.  God  is  true ; 
there  can  be  no  conflict  in  his  various  testimonies. 

"\Ye  have  attempted  in  the  majority  report  to  hold  to 
the  standards.  They  may  be  right  or  they  may  be  wrong, 
but  to  us  Presbyterians  they  are  an  authoritative  expo- 
sition as  to  what  the  scriptures  teach.  We  are  to  interpret 
these  standards  in  their  historic  sense.  Creeds  and  cove- 
nants must  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  that  w^e  believe 
those  who  framed  them  gave  them ;  but  w^e  do  not  claim 
for  them  the  authority  of  inspiration.  When  ordained, 
.  we  accept  them  as  containing  the  system  of  true  doctrine, 
and  we  may  not  believe  every  point  in  its  historical  sense. 
Some  of  the  statements  of  that  (Confession  are  funda- 
mental, and  so  are  vital ;  some  are  not  so.  I  have  doubts 
about  the  six  days  of  the  creation.  In  their  historical 
sense  they  must  certainl\'  be  taken  as  six  days  of  twenty- 
four  hours  each,  but  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  prepared  to 
accept  that  sense ;  neither  do  I  know  if  T  believe  it  means 
six  years  or  six  long  periods  each.  I  do  not  know  now 
which  I  believe.  So,  also,  our  Confession  teaches  that  a 
man  must  not  marry  any  woman  nearer  of  kin  to  his  do- 
ceased  wife  than  he  may  of  kin  to  himself.  I  do  not  agree 
with  that  statement.  Who,  then,  is  to  determine  whether 
the  historic  sense  is  to  be  accepted  in  these  cases  ?     The 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  545 

church.  There  are,  therefore,  certain  limits  to  our  neces- 
sary belief  of  the  standards.  Now,  the  word  'create'  can 
have  but  one  meaning,  and  that  is  immediate  creation. 
That  is  what  our  creed  teaches.  That  is  what  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  teaches.  'I'he  rule  is  infloxibk^  that  we 
must  interpret  them  historically,  but  our  Book  provides 
for  a  certain  liberty  of  belief.  Some  errors  of  belief  and 
some  practical  innovations  may  not  be  mischievous  ones. 

"For  this  majority  report  I  ask  your  careful  consider- 
ation. It  is  not  my  pa])or.  It  is  a  joint  work,  and  the 
united  wisdom  of  all  the  committee.  We  ask  that  you  do 
not  make  ca[)tious  objections  to  its  verluage.  It  is  the 
best  we  could  do.  We  have  used  plain  language  rather 
than  scientific  technicalities.  Science  is  now  like  the  sheet 
which  Peter  saw  lowered  down  from  the  heavens ;  it  is 
filled  with  animals  of  every  sort,  and  all  sorts  of  four- 
footed  things."  Dr.  Armstrong  went  on  to  say  that  the 
Bible  does  not  tell  us  Adam's  body  was  created  of  clay, 
but  of  organic  dust.  "By  organic  dust  we  mean  mould, 
vegetable  or  animal  mould,  as  contradistingiiished  from 
sand  or  clay.  But  wlum  a  man  says  it  was  evolved  out  of 
organic  dust,  I  cannot  agree  to  that.  I  do  not  know  what 
he  means. 

"We  say  in  our  report  that  he  was  created  witliout  any 
natural  animal  parentage,  and  in  a  manner  to^  preserve 
pi'oj)cr  race  unity.  What  do'  we  mean  by  race  unity? 
I'biit  there  was  no  more  ape  blood  in  Eve  than  in  Adam, 
or  rice  versa,  in  this  ground  work  for  proper  race  unity. 
This  is  simply  the  statement  of  what  we  believe.  The  de- 
liverance is  what  we  understand  our  standards  teach.  It 
Avas  this  our  Westminster  divines  meant  when  they  formu- 
hitcd  these  doctrines.  This  is  no  new  doctrine.  I  have 
said,  when  you  come  to  decide  on  limits  of  liberty,  it 
must  be  determined  if  the  error  is  one  that  strikes  at  the 
vitals  of  religion  and  is  liable  to  do  harm.  We  say  these 
teachings  of  evolution  are  dangerous  errors,  because  they 
endanger  the  plenary  ins])iration  of  the  scriptures,  and 
leave  the  Bible  no  longer  worthy  to  be  called  the  word  of 
God.  These  old  ministers  wliO'  have  been  grounded  in 
the  word  of  God  for  twenty-five  years  are  not  endangered 
by  the  teachings,  but  the  young  men,  if  they  adopt  the 


540  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

same  doctrine,  are  swept  away.  I  do  not  believe  in  evolu- 
tion in  any  sense,  and  I  am  glad  I  do  not ;  but  if  you  do, 
do  not  let  it  carry  you  to  the  belief  that  it  refers  to  man 
made  in  the  inuige  of  God.  It  will  necessitate  giving  up 
the  doctrine  of  the  fall.  According  to  evolution,  man  was 
at  his  loAvest  stage,  just  evolved  from  a  brute ;  how  could 
he  fall  ?  He  was  already  as  low  as  he  could  get.  I  want 
to  hold  on  to  those  first  chapters  of  Genesis.  I  believe 
the  garden  of  Eden  had  as  distinct  a  location  as  the  city 
of  Jerusalem.  It  is  all  history  to  me.  It  is  a  book  ple- 
narily  inspired  ;    it  is  the  word  of  God." 

Dr.  Armstrong  had  spoken  one  hour  and  a  half. 

Dr.  Woodrow  began  with  expression  of  his  thanks  for 
the  two  hours  given  him  in  which  to  explain  his  views. 
He  heartily  agreed  with  much  that  had  been  spoken  by 
Dr.  Armstrong.  Anything  that  could  lead  to  a  doubt  of 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  scriptures  should  not  be 
entertained  by  this  Assembly.  There  was  no  human 
being  who  believed  that  doctrine  more  fully  than  he. 
"Show  me  that  the  opinions  I  hold  are  in  opposition  to 
any  'Thus  saith  the  Lord,'  and  I  abandon  them  at  once. 
There  is  nothing  in  my  belief  that-  does,  directly  or  in- 
directly, impugn  one  sentence  in  that  sacred  word.  I 
think  I  can  show  it  to  be  so.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
doubt  in  my  mind  of  the  perfect  historical  accuracy  of 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  of  every  other  chapter. 

"Dr.  Armstrong  properly  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  this  question  is  fully  before  you,  and  you  have  the 
right  to  discuss  it ;  but  it  is  not  always  our  duty  to  do 
that  which  it  is  our  right  and  authority  to  do,  and  I  think 
this  is  one  such  case. 

"It  has  been  said,  this  (piestion  is  not  alone  scientific. 
So  far  as  it  is  scientific,  the  church  has  nothing  to  do  Avith 
it.  Dr.  Armstrong  said  the  word  ecclesiastical  is  used  in 
contradistinction  to  what  is  political  or  civil.  The  contra- 
distinction must  apply  also  to  what  is  scientific,  and  the 
church  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  matter  which  is  not 
ecclesiastical.  Every  scientific  subject  must  be  ruled  out. 
In  our  pulpits  as  ministers,  in  our  church  courts  as  pres- 
byters, we  are  not  to  handle  political  or  civil,  or  scientific 
questions.     But  while  agreeing  with  him  in  so  much  as 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  547 

referred  to  the  common  domain  of  religion  and  science, 
and  while  appreciating-  his  charge  that  science  was  a 
squatter  upon  the  territory  of  religion,  and  that  their 
'friends  the  enemy'  must  get  out,  I  would  remind  him 
that  science  has  some  rights  as  well.  We  who  are  study- 
ing God's  word  and  works  find  ample  testimony  for  him 
in  both.  There  is  just  as  much  squatting,  and  it  is  just  as 
cheeky,  for  the  ecclesiastic  to  preach  on  science  as  for 
science  to  intrude  upon  the  ecclesiastic. 

"You  have  been  told,  and  rightly  told,  that  an  oath  is 
to  be  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  understood  by  the 
imposer  of  the  oath.  'Creeds  and  covenants,'  rightly  says 
Dr.  Armstrong,  'must  be  interpreted  in  their  historical 
sense.'  Yet  Dr.  Armstrong,  as  you  have  heard,  while  not 
allowing  me  to  question  the  word  'dust,'  feels  quite  free 
to  doubt  whether  the  six  days  of  Genesis  are  literal  days, 
which  he  says  is  the  historic  sense,  or  long  periods ;  and 
boldly  declares  that  he  does  not  agree  with  the  prohibition 
of  a  man  marrying  his  wife's  sister.  Perhaps  his  turning 
his  back  on  the  historic  sense  may  not  in  either  of  these 
cases  have  surprised  you  very  much.  But  were  you  not  as- 
tounded Avhen  one  who  says  I  may  not  suggest  any  other 
than  the  ordinary  interpretation  of  the  word  'dust,'  boldly 
proclaimed  here  before  us  that  man  was  not  formed,  as 
the  Bible  says,  of  dust,  but  of  organic  dust,  and  'by  or- 
ganic dust,'  says  he,  'we  mean,  not  sand  or  clay,  but  some 
kind  of  mould,  vegetable  mould  or  animal  mould  ?'  He 
comes  and  says,  'Oh !  no,  sand  and  dust — that  won't  do.' 
I  can  show  you  that  that  will  not  do  because  there  are 
silicates  and  silicic  acids,  etc.,  in  these  which  do  not  ap- 
pear in  the  composition  of  man.  These  component  parts 
are  declared  to  exist  in  sand  and  clay  by  science,  l^ow, 
I,  who  am  held  up  as  a  heretic,  would  not  on  any  account 
subordinate  the  word  of  God  in  this  way  to  the  teaching  of 
science.  Here  look  and  see  what  a  conspicuous  example 
the  distinguished  gentleman  who  addressed  you  this 
morning  has  given  us  of  the  teachings  of  science  and  of 
the  necessity  of  standing  by  the  historical  sense  of  what  is 
written  in  our  standards.  He  tells  you  that  what  he  has 
just  expressed  about  the  meaning  of  the  word  dust  is  not 
the  historical  sense  of  that  word,  and  that  science  confirms 


548  MY  LIFE   AXD   TIMES. 

what  he  says ;  and  tliis  being  scientific,  you  must  ac- 
cept it. 

"I  accepted,  as  you  accepted,  and  I  now  accept,  every 
word  in  this  story  of  the  creation  contained  in  our  stan- 
dards. I  believe  that  God  created  man  from  the  dust,  and 
woman  from  the  rib  taken  from  the  man's  side.  If  I  had 
full  power  to  rewrite  our  standards,  I  would  not  wish  to 
change  a  sentence,  word  or  letter  from  that  which  already 
exists. 

"The  great  difficulty  is  that  those  entertaining  ideas 
differing  from  the  majority  report  are  misunderstood. 
This  whole  subject  is  a  new  one.  It  was  not  in  existence 
until  a  comparatively  late  period.  It  must  pass  through 
many  periods  before  it  reaches  an  easily  understood 
shape.  You  have  been  called  on  to  condemn  the  heresy 
of  evolution  without  any  qualification,  and  then  in  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  man.  Let  me  read  to  you  from  a  book  by 
Dr.  Armstrong.  He  sets  out  a  scheme  of  evolution  thus : 
'The  oak  passes  into  the  silk  w^orm,  the  silk  worm  into 
the  frog,  the  frog  into  man.'  I  never  saw  any  scientist 
who  even  came  in  a  thousand  miles  of  believing  such  a 
caricature.  Is  it  strange  you  should  say,  'Out  of  my  way' 
with  such  absurdity  ?  If  this  profound  student  of  half  a 
century  errs  thus  in  representing  evolution,  what  can  we 
expect  from  those  who  have  had  no  such  opportunity  for 
study  ^  Again,  Dr.  Armstrong  has  announced  in  this 
book  a  fact  that  is  the  most  important  step  in  geology  of 
the  last  half  century,  if  true ;  and  he  asserts  it  upon  his 
own  observation.  It  is  absolutely  new  to  every  geologist 
in  the  world.  He  says  that  on  the  western  flank  of  the 
Alleghenies,  in  Virginia,  grow  corals  and  sponges  of  the 
same  character  as  those  now  living  upon  the  Florida 
coast. 

"There  is  much  of  doubt  hanging  over  new  sciences, 
and  we  ought  not  to  be  too  hurried  in  the  expression  of 
our  opinions.  It  is  desirable  that  the  church  should  take 
more  time  before  giving  a  definite  utterance  of  its  opinion 
upon  evolution.  I  do  not  want  to  reflect  on  our  jirede- 
cessors,  but  whenever  the  church  has  undertaken  to  decide 
any  question  showing  the  relation  of  science  and  religion, 
she  has  always  been  totally  wrong,  invaria])ly  and  dread- 


COXTKOVERSIES  OF  SCIEI>fCE.  549 

fully  wrong.  Fifteen  hundred  years  ago  the  church 
taught  that  the  idea  was  not  only  ridiculous,  but  contrary 
to  the  scriptures,  that  the  earth  was  round.  In  the  six- 
teenth century  the  mobility  of  the  earth  and  fixedness  of 
the  starry  system  was  condemned  by  the  Christian  church. 
The  law  of  gravitation  was  condemned  as  taking  away 
from  God  the  power  he  had  of  controlling  his  universe. 
Shall  we  learn  anything  or  not  ?  Shall  we  not  learn  that 
we  must  take  a  little  time  to  decide  these  questions  ^ 

"The  infallible  rule  for  interpreting  scripture  is  by  the 
scripture  itself.  Things  not  clear  in  themselves  are  else- 
where sufficiently  explained  to  give  proper  understanding. 
The  sci'iptures  principally  teach  what  man  is  to  believe 
concerning  God,  and  what  duties  God  requires  of  man. 
Xot  only  do  they  principally  teach  this,  but  they  teach 
nothing  else.  The  Bible  was  not  intended  to  teach  the 
relation  between  things,  but  between  God  and  man. 

"You  are  requested  to  say  that  Adam  and  Eve  were 
created  by  an  immediate  act,  so  as  to  preserve  the  perfect 
race  unity,  j^ow,  if  you  are  going  to  explain,  you  ought 
to  make  things  plainer.  What  do  you  mean  by  imme- 
diate ?  Do  you  mean  without  media  ?  There  were  the 
dust,  the  rib,  as  media  in  this  creation.  It  cannot  mean, 
therefore,  without  media.  It  must  mean,  then,  instan- 
taneous. Who  told  you  it  was  instantaneous  ?  Did  God  ? 
Does  he  tell  you  how  long  he  took  to  make  man  ?  He  says 
he  did  it.  He  did  it  with  dust  of  the  ground.  But  does 
he  say  he  did  it  instantaneously  ?  There  is  no  hint,  how- 
ever slight,  that  it  was  so.  ISTeither  the  standards  nor  the 
word  of  God  affirm  it.  You  are  adding  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  requiring  those  under  you  to  believe  that  which 
God  has  not  spoken.  That  Adam's  body  was  directly 
fashioned  by  Almighty  God,  neither  our  standards  nor  the 
Bible  say  anything  of  the  sort.  The  Bible  is  absolutely 
silent  as  to  mode  and  time.  If  you  assert  that  you  know, 
you  err.  You  assert  that  which  you  will  not  find  author- 
ity for  in  the  word  of  God. 

''This  majority  report  affirms  that  the  first  pair  were 
created  without  any  natural  animal  parentage.  How  do 
you  know  this  ?  They  were  created,  it  is  said,  from  dust. 
How  long  had  this  dust  been  created  ?     Some  will  answer 


550  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

that  it  was  created  a  few  days  before.  Others,  that  it  was 
created  ages — long  geological  ages — before.  ]^ow,  what 
changes  occurred  in  those  ages  '^  You  do  not  know.  If 
you  adopt  this  report,  you  will  be  adding,  not  only  to  our 
standards  unlawfully,  but  you  will  be  adding  to  God's 
word  that  which  he  never  taught,  that  which  it  is  no- 
where intimated  he  meant  to  teach.  We  have  no  right  to 
interpret  God's  thoughts.  Are  we  fit  to  say  what  God's 
way  Avould  be?  God  leads  his  children  through  a  path 
beset  with  pain  and  agony.  When  our  children  ask  for 
bread,  we  give  it  them.  But  God  says.  Get  your  bread 
by  the  sweat  of  your  brow.  His  thoughts  are  not  our 
thoughts,  his  ways  are  not  our  ways.  There  are  many 
things  we  have  to  confess  that  we  cannot  understand. 
What  was  the  nature  and  the  meaning  of  that  'still  small 
voice'  which  said,  'Let  there  be'  '^  I  do  not  know ;  but  I 
know  that  God  caused  that  voice  to  come,  and  I  know 
what  it  effected,  and  that  is  all  that  it  is  necessary  for  me 
to  know.  I  know  God  created  man,  but  I  do  not  know  how 
he  did  it,  and  I  am  not  going  to  thrust  forward  my  own 
peculiar  views  upon  a  matter  which  God  in  no  way 
teaches. 

"It  is  said  that  we  are  told  by  God  in  his  word  that  he 
made  the  body  of  Adam  from  literal  dust.  But  what  is 
said  on  that  subject  is  said  almost  word  for  word  in  re- 
gard to  the  lower  animals.  What  may  be  true  of  the  for- 
mation of  one  may  be  true  of  the  other  ;  and  any  one  who 
admits  that  the  lower  animals  may  have  been  formed  by 
an  evolutionary  process  must  admit  that  the  body  of  man 
may  have  been  formed  in  the  same  manner.  Xow,  Dr. 
Armstrong  says  in  his  book,  'The  hypothesis  of  evolution, 
in  its  most  limited  range,  is  not  irreconcilable,  as  I  think, 
with  the  Bible  account  of  the  creation  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals in  the  world.'  Are  you  going  in  the  face  of  what  is 
told  you  by  this  learned  divine  ?  But  the  same  language 
is  used  with  regard  to  the  lower  animals  that  is  used  of 
the  body  of  man.  Are  you  going,  in  this  hurried  and  ill- 
advised  way,  to  add  to  the  standards  of  the  church  ? 

''You  are  told  that  this  doctrine,  if  accepted  as  proba- 
bly true,  will  endanger  the  doctrine  of  the  federal  head- 
ship of  Adam.     If  this  is  so,  then  it  is  untrue.     But  it 


COXTROVEKSIES  OF  scie:n"ce.  551 

passes  mv  comprehension  to  see  wherein  the  connection 
lies.  It  cannot  make  any  possible  difference  what  God 
nsed.  Who  was  Adam  ^  Was  Adam  that  which  was 
made  of  the  dust  of  the  ground  ^  Xo,  the  soul  was  the 
man,  and  nothing  became  man  until  it  was  united  with 
the  soul,  and  if  there  had  been  a  million  forms  like 
Adam's,  it  did  not  become  man  or  Adam  until  God  placed 
the  soul  within  it. 

'"T  will  not  enter  upon  the  sentimental  side  of  the 
question.  I  have  presented  in  brief  some  of  the  principal 
reasons  why  you  should  not  now  consider  these  overtures 
that  have  been  submitted  to  the  Assembly.  But  your 
answer  should  be  to  them:  For  the  teachings  of  the 
church  we  refer  you  to  the  standards  of  the  church.  I 
would  urge  that  you  abstain  from  what  would  be  a  griev- 
ous wrong,  and  must  prejudice  a  case  now  pending  in  a 
lower  court  of  this  church. 

"I  have  spoken  as  long  as  I  care  to  now ;  if  I  shall  see 
fit  at  some  later  time  to  avail  myself  of  the  remaining 
time  belonging  to  me,  I  should  like  the  privilege  to  do  so." 

Rev.  Dr.  R.  K.  Smoot  said  it  was  the  clear  right  and 
duty  of  the  Assembly  to  give  decisions  against  errors  of 
doctrine  and  immorality  in  practice.  Here  w^as  a  case 
brought  before  the  Assembly  by  overtures  from  eight 
presbyteries.  These  presbyteries  have  a  right  to  your  tes- 
timony against  the  erroneous  doctrine  now  in  question. 
Dr.  Smoot  insisted  that  a  decision  from  this  Assembly 
could  not  interfere  unfavorably  with  the  case  now  said  to 
be  before  the  Augusta  Presbytery.  For  Dr.  Woodrow  to 
say  that  our  decision  must  affect  unfavorably  his  case 
before  a  lower  court,  is  not  that  a  constructive  plea  of 
guilty  ?"  The  remainder  of  his  speech  was  an  earnest  de- 
fence of  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  the  committee's 
aihrming  that  Adam's  Body  was  created  by  an  immediate 
act  of  almighty  power.  ''The  word  'immediate'  is  over 
and  against  evolution.  As  long  as  you  have  immediate  in 
there,  you  are  against  evolution.  Some  modest,  timid 
member  will  rise  and  say,  'Brother  Moderator,  I  think  the 
trouble  will  be  at  an  end  if  we  strike  out  "immediate"  in 
the  report.'  I  have  no  doubt  it  will,  but  that  word  'im- 
mediate' is  the  gravamen  of  the  issue.     I  got  that  word 


552  MY  LIFE   AXn  TIMES. 

from  the  gentleman  himself.  Stick  to  it.  It  is  opposed 
to  evolution.     Hold  to  it." 

Rev.  F.  L.  Ferguson  said:  ''I  agree  with  Dr.  Arm- 
strong and  Dr.  Woodrow  both  u])on  the  general  issue  be- 
fore us,  but,  as  to  just  how  Adam  was  made,  I  am  be- 
ginning to  believe  that  1  do  not  know  what  I  believe. 
[Laughter.]  The  one  with  his  chemical  and  the  other 
with  his  natural  process  have  pretty  thoroughly  confused 
me.  [Laughter.]  I  doubt  the  legality  of  that  majority 
report. 

''I  thought  I  saw  in  the  argument  before  the  committee 
infinite  complications,  and  the  arguments  to-day  do  not 
improve  things.  What  an  imbecility  it  is  to  urge  that 
Dr.  Woodrow  makes  a  constructive  plea  of  guilty  when 
he  says  that  a  decision  against  him  in  this  highest  court 
might  have  an  unfavorable  effect  upon  the  lower  court 
which  is  about  shortly  to  try  his  case !  The  idea  seems 
to  be  that  it  is  no  matter  whether  his  presbytery  decides 
against  him,  because  he  can  then  appeal  to  his  Synod  ;  l)ut 
is  it  not  very  plain  that  if  the  synod  decide  against  him 
he  will  be  cut  off  from  our  highest  court,  because  it  will 
have  already  decided  against  him  ^ 

"I  doubted  the  expediency  of  this  course  at  first,  and 
I  am  more  confirmed  now  in  my  belief.  Advocates  of  the 
majority  report  think  it  will  settle  the  whole  matter. 
Will  it  settle  it  here  in  Augusta  'I  The  report  of  that 
minority  committee  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  It  is  urged  that  this  trouble  is  widespread. 
There  are  only  seven  overtures ;  that  leaves  sixty-one 
presbyteries  that  do  not  seem  to  have  any  trouble.  But, 
be  it  Avidespread  or  not,  the  presbyteries  are  able  to  deal 
with  this  matter.  Since  this  matter  has  come  up,  several 
members  have  said  to  me,  *I  believe  your  paper  is  the  true 
thing,  but  there  is  a  demand  for  a  deliverance  upon  this 
question.'  There  was  a  time  in  the  committee  wdien  a 
paper  might  have  passed  that,  for  conspicuous  and  pic- 
turesque and)iguity,  would  have  excelled  anything  ever 
introduced  into  this  body.  The  members  did  not  endorse 
what  it  said,  but  it  was  an  easy  way  out  of  the  troulde, 
and  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  thing,  they  were  about  to 
vote  for  it,     Xow,  I  say  if  this  minority  paper  is  true 


CO:^TROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  553 

Presbyterian  doctrine,  let  iis  vote  for  it.  If  the  majority 
report  is  true  doctrine,  let  ns  vote  for  that.  I  am  no  ad- 
vocate of  evolntion,  but  I  do  not  want  this  Assembly  to 
take  a  step  wliicli  may  prove  an  unwise  step,  or  by  its 
action  to  prejudge  a  case  pending  in  a  lower  court." 

Rev.  Dr.  G.  B.  Strickler  said :  ''If  we  adopt  this  evolu- 
tion doctrine,  it  brings  us  into  odium,  because  it  was  of 
anti-Christian  origin.  The  originator  of  it  was  Charles 
Darwin,  and  the  propagators,  Huxley,  Tyndall  and 
others,  j)i"onounced  sceptics  and  infidels.  If  the  Presby- 
terian Church  declares  that  it  believes  we  came  from 
monkeys,  it  will  cause  prejudice  against  the  church.  If 
this  doctrine  is  admitted  by  us,  our  standards  must  be 
rewritten.  Our  standards  say  man  has  fallen  physically, 
morally,  and  in  every  way.  According  to  evolution,  he 
is  now  more  perfect  than  when  he  came  from  the  hand  of 
God.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  he  is  im- 
measurably above  what  he  was  before  he  had  sinned  at  all. 

"According  to  what  has  been  said  before,  if  we  would 
interpret  scripture  correctly,  we  must  compare  scrip- 
ture with  scripture.  Was  this  doctrine  of  evolution  got- 
ten from  scripture  ^  l^o  ;  it  was  originated  in  the  investi- 
gations of  science.  The  scripture  was  brought  into  har- 
mony with  this  teaching  of  science  by  giving  it  a  meaning 
as  different  from  its  real  meaning  as  it  is  possible  for  it 
to  be.  You  can  see  that  a  tremendous  amount  of  force 
was  brought  to  bear  to  accomplish  this  thing. 

"The  injury  that  this  doctrine  is  doing  renders  it  im- 
portant that  the  church  should  take  action  upon  this  mat- 
ter wherever  it  has  an  opportunity  to  do  so  properly." 

Rev.  Dr.  W.  F.  Junkin:  "It  has  been  said  the  intro- 
duction of  this  subject  prejudices  a  case  in  a  lower  court, 
and  that  it  is  grievous  injustice  to  decide  it.  In  the 
concrete  case  below,  the  facts  and  law  come  up.  We  sim- 
ply define  what  is  the  law  as  held  by  our  church.  The 
case  below  must  stand  or  fall  upon  the  facts  as  judged  by 
the  law  which  we  are  asked  to  clearly  define.  Our  report 
attacks  no  individual.  We  did  not  name  any  man.  We 
said  there  were  certain  evils.  If  there  is  poison  in  the 
well  at  Avhich  my  children  are  drinking,  it  is  vastly  more 
important  to  me  to  have  the  well  purified  or  the  water  cut 


554  MY   LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

off  from  my  family  than  to  know  who  pnt  the  poison  in 
it ;  but  if  a  man  comes  forward  and  says  he  did  it,  I  fly 
at  him  in  just  indig-nation  and  hokl  him  for  proper  pun- 
ishment. It  is  not  so  important  to  us  who  caused  this 
trouble  as  to  end  the  trouble.  If  we  do  not  come  to  a 
deliverance  in  this  matter,  we  are  false  to  our  vows  and 
our  God.  These  overtures  are  respectful  and  earnest. 
They  say,  We  appeal  to  you  to  know  if  these  teachers 
shall  be  allowed  to  contradict  the  teachings  of  God  as  we 
understand  them.  Are  we  competent  to  give  this  utter- 
ance ?  It  is  said  we  are  not  experts  in  science  and  we  do 
not  know  it  all.  But  we  do  not  need  to  know  what  is  evo- 
lution. We  do  not  have  to  give  a  deliverance  on. evolution, 
but  upon  the  word  of  God  and  our  standards.  The  church 
does  not  want  a  deliverance  on  evolution.  Our  science  is 
a  science  that  arises  above  this  dust,  like  the  sun  above 
the  grovelling  insects  upon  the  ground. 

"There  is  need  for  a  deliverance.  We  are  competent 
and  authorized  to  give  it.  Now,  what  should  be  the  char- 
acter of  that  utterance  ?  We  are  not  here  to  say  whether 
the  Confession  of  Faith  is  true  or  not.  We  are  not  here 
to  say  the  Bible  is  true.  As  Dr.  Armstrong  said,  'We 
have  already  cast  that  anchor  out,  and  that  anchor  holds.' 
We  are  not  here  to  make  a  deliverance  on  science.  Who 
told  you  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  were  true  ?  The 
other  chapters  told  me  so ;  the  Bible  tells  me  so.  Study 
the  Bible  with  the  Bible. 

"Our  utterance  should  be  a  clean-cut,  clear  and  unmis- 
takable deliverance  of  what  we  believe  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Catechism  in  refer- 
ence to  the  creation  of  man.  You  have  such  an  utterance 
in  the  majority  report  now  before  this  Assembly,  and  I 
hope  it  will  be  adopted  as  the  voice  of  this  Assembly." 

Rev.  F.  L.  Ferguson  concluded  the  discussion  upon  the 
question  of  evolution  on  the  part  of  the  minority  in  a 
speech  of  five  minutes  yet  remaining  to  that  side.  He 
said :  "I  would  like  to  know  if  these  brethren  mean  this 
Assembly  must  answer  'yes'  or  'no'  to  these  overtures.  If 
seven  presbyteries  have  the  right  to  demand  a  categorical 
construction  of  any  question — of  this  question — then, 
why  shall  not,  at  the  next  Assem])ly,  other  presbyteries 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIEIfCE.  555 

come  forward  and  demand  at  our  hands  tliat  we  con- 
.strne  the  creation  of  the  workl  in  six  days  ?  What  was 
meant  by  six  days?  That  question,  if  urged  (and  why 
may  it  not  be?),  will  carrv  us  into  endless  and  aimless 
troubles  and  discussions.  Ue  have  heard  it  several  times 
already  on  this  floor  that  there  is  doubt  in  the  minds  of 
some  of  the  fathers  in  the  church  on  this  question.  If 
these  seven  presbyteries  are  in  trouble,  let  them  determine 
it  for  themselves.  There  is  no  widespread  trouble 
throughout  the  church  demanding  action  at  our  hands 
now  that  will  prejudice  and  prejudge  a  case  pending  in  a 
lower  court.  My  time  is  so  short  that  I  cannot  enter  into 
argument,  but  must  simply  content  myself  with  this  state- 
ment. I  believe  the  paper  I  have  offered  best  meets  the 
question,  and  I  do  not  believe  the  adoption  of  the  ma- 
jority report  will  be  wise  or  expedient.'' 

After  considerable  debate.  Dr.  ^Yoodrow  was  given 
fifteen  minutes  to  conclude — the  time  left  by  him  in  his 
:first  speech. 

Dr.  Woodrow,  in  conclusion :  ''I  do  not  desire  to  force 
myself  upon  this  Assembly.  I  recognize  the  courtesy  of 
the  Assembly  in  allowing  me  so  much  time.  But  I  warn 
you  that  the  adoption  of  this  majority  report  is  not  only 
an  arraignment  of  myself,  but  a  condemnation  on  the 
charge  of  heresy  of  half  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina, 
a  large  portion  of  the  Synods  of  Georgia,  Alabama  and 
elsewhere,  and  these  are  condemned  as  unfit  to  teach  in 
the  name  of  this  church.  A  deliverance  such  as  you  now 
propose  has  no  legal  effect,  and  is  not  to  be  obeyed  by  any 
one  who  believes  it  is  in  opposition  to  the  word  of  God. 
To  such  it  would  be  devoid  of  the  semblance  of  authority. 

'*So  far  as  I  have  heard,  there  has  not  been  one  fair 
statement  of  my  views.  Dr.  Hollifield  said,  'Dr.  Wood- 
row  says  he  has  been  for  years  in  search  of  something  to 
tell  him  what  Adam  was  made  of;'  and  added,  'here  is  a 
Bible  that  will  tell  him.'  Xow,  I  knew  all  the  Bible  said 
before  he  was  born  [laughter],  and  I  believe  it,  too. 

"As  to  evolution,  it  is  a  matter  of  absolute  indifference. 
I  care  nothing  for  it.  What  is  evolution  ?  At  best  it  is 
nothing  but  a  hypothesis,  a  theory,  altogether  outside  of 
the  word  of  God.     Like  chemistry  or  astronomy,  it  is  a 


556  MY  LIFE  AND  Ti^rp:s. 

science  not  in  tlie  word  of  God ;  bnt  if  there  is  a  single 
word  of  God  that  is  contrary  to  it,  that  is  enongh  to  con- 
demn it  with  me.  If  this  Assemhly  shonkl  propose  to 
make  any  deliverance  in  favor  of  evolution,  I  should  op- 
pose it  as  strongh'  as  any  member  of  this  body.  The  ques- 
tion before  us  is,  shall  this  Assembly  inject  into  the  word 
of  God  something  that  is  not  there  ?  You  are  asked  to 
prescribe  the  time  occupied  by  God  in  the  creation  of 
man,  when  God  has  not  told  you.  The  Bible  tells  us  that 
God  created  man  of  dust,  but  it  does  not  say  how  long  he 
was  in  doing  it,  and  you  are  adding  your  own  petty  no- 
tions to  his  ever-glorious  and  true  word.  You  will  be  vio- 
lating the  sacred  trust  imposed  in  you.  You  will  be  say- 
ing what  he  has  not  authorized  you  to  say,  speaking  in  his 
name  what  he  himself  has  not  spoken  or  authorized  you 
to  speak.  I  beseech  you,  therefore,  not  for  my  sake,  but 
that  you  may  be  true  servants  of  the  high  God,  that  you 
do  not  drive  away  those  who  cannot  subscribe  to  such  a 
declaration.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  that  will  au- 
thorize you  to  say  the  creation  was  'immediate,'  and  if 
you  do  so,  you  go  in  the  face  of  the  word  of  God." 

Dr.  Armstrong,  chairman  of  the  committee  making  the 
majority  report,  now  proceeded  to  close  the  discussion,  it 
being  determined  that  there  should  be  no  discussion  by 
the  members  of  the  Assembly  outside  of  the  committee. 

He  began  with  a  vindication  of  his  friend,  Dr.  Hodge, 
wdiom  Dr.  Flinn  had  said  agreed  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  that 
the  theory  of  evolution  was  not  opposed  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible.  He  had  a  letter  from  the  Doctor  read,  in 
which  he  said,  ''I  fully  agree  with  you  on  all  the  grounds 
in  your  book,"  and,  said  Dr.  Armstrong,  'T  do  not  sup- 
pose anybody  will  accuse  me  of  agreeing  with  Dr.  Wood- 
row. 

"There  has  been  no  attack  on  our  main  position  as  to 
the  competency  or  authority  of  this  body  to  issue  a  de- 
liverance, and  that  the  interpretation  of  our  standards 
must  be  in  their  historical  sense,  and  that,  interpreted  in 
their  historical  sense,  they  do  controvert  this  system  of 
evolution.  The  point  on  which  you  will  feel  most  diffi- 
culty is  that  the  case  is  already  before  a  lower  court  of  this 
church  in  the  way  of  a  judicial  process.     But  before  this 


controvi:ksies  of  sciexce.  557 

case  was  brought  into  that  court,  the  subject  had  been 
taken  up  by  different  presbyteries,  and  they  sent  their 
overtures  to  us.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinions,  and 
then-  ask  us  to  interpret  our  standards.  TVe  are  perfectly 
competent  to  do  so.  Suppose  we  wait  till  the  synods  or 
presbyteries  signify  their  rulings,  will  it  not  have  it* 
moral  effect  upon  this  body  when  it  comes  before  us  ?  Do 
not  let  that  argument  of  prejudice  influence  you  to  refuse 
a  decision  here.  There  are  three  papers  before  you.  The 
report  of  the  minority  is  in  substance  that  we  give  no 
answer.  That  is  not  a  fair  answer.  It  is  not  what  they 
have  a  right  to.  In  the  other  minority  report,  the  first 
difference  is  that  we  send  our  views  in  the  form  of  a  pas- 
toral letter. 

'"This  paper  says  just  as  much  as  the  paper  of  the  ma- 
jority, but  when  I  speak  on  a  subject  in  which  I  have  con- 
victions, I  want  to  use  language  that  everybody  can  under- 
stand. Ours  is  in  plain  language.  I  believe  it  is  the  pur- 
pose of  this  Assembly  to  give  an  answer  to  these  over- 
tures. I  deprecate  this  doctrine,  because  it  impugns  the 
inspiration  of  the  word  of  God." 

After  considerable  debate  as  to  the  form  in  which  this 
question  was  before  the  house,  both  minority  reports  were 
put  to  a  vote  and  lost,  and  the  majority  report  was 
adopted,  on  a  call  of  the  veas  and  nays,  by  a  vote  of  137 
to  13. 

This  vote  was  taken  on  the  sixth  day,  and  a  good  many 
commissioners  took  their  departure.  Dr.  Armstrong,  and 
it  may  be  supposed  other  moderate  men,  amongst  them. 
Evidently  some  of  those  who  remained  were  more  enthu- 
siastic than  their  leaders,  and  these,  being  not  fully  sat- 
isfied, felt  that  some  positive  action  should  be  taken,  and 
amid  a  good  deal  of  confusion  and  a  great  deal  of  excite- 
ment, there  was  passed  by  a  majority  of  fifty-four  to 
thirty-six,  in  a  house  reduced  from  one  hundred  and  fifty 
to  but  ninety  commissioners,  a  paper  directing  the  four 
controlling  synods  to  dismiss  Professor  Woodrow  from 
the  Seminary,  and  appoint  another  in  his  place.  In  an- 
other paper,  which  the  confused  minutes  say  was  adopted, 
though  we  are  not  told  by  what  vote,  we  read  as  fol- 
lows : 


558  :my  life  axd  timks. 

Yoni'  Committee  on  Thoologiciil  S(MiiiiKiiip>i  wo\ild  respectfully 
report  as  follows : 

First,  in  reply  to  tlie  injunction  laid  upon  us  to  find  and  state  the 
relation  existing  between  this  General  Assembly  and  the  theological 
seminaries  organized  within  the  pale  of  our  church,  we  report: 

1.  That  this  Assembly  sustains  very  important  relations  to  all 
such  institutions ;  yet  these  relations  differ  somewhat  according  to 
the  constitution  and  practice  of  each  institution  as  ratified  by  the 
Assembly. 

2.  That  by  the  veiy  genius  of  Presbyterianism  the  Assembly  is 
bound  to  maintain  a  supervisory  jurisdiction  over  these  and  all 
other  like  corporations;  and  also  over  all  schemes  for  religious 
work,  so  far  as  they  affect  the  practice  or  doctrine  of  the  Assembly's 
constituencies,  and  especially  the  office-bearers  of  the  church. 

3.  That  this  jurisdiction  must  in  every  case  enable  the  Assembly, 
through  the  proper  channels  of  authority,  to  keep  all  such  institu- 
tions free  from  everything  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  sys- 
tem ;  and,  of  course,  free  from  all  teaching  inconsistent  with  the 
Avord  of  God  as  expounded  in  our  standards. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  here  is  an  attempt  by  the  Au- 
gusta Assembly  to  state  the  trite  relation  between  the 
General  Assembly  and  all  the  theological  seminaries  of 
our  church,  x^othing  is  said  as  to  what  is  written  on  the 
powers  of  the  Assembly  in  our  Book  of  Church  Order, 
but  reference  is  made  to  the  different  seminary  constitu- 
tions as  having  been  ratified  by  the  Assembly,  and  there  is 
some  allusion  to  the  directorships  of  the  seminaries  as 
being  in  corporations  by  legislative  enactment.  But  the 
distinct  claim  is  made  for  the  Assembly  of  supervisory 
jurisdiction  over  various  corporations  and  all  schemes  for 
religious  work,  and  in  large  measure  over  all  the  Assem- 
bly's constituencies,  and  especially  the  office-bearers  of 
the  church. 

The  Prosecution  of  Di?.  Woodkow  before  the  Pres- 
bytery OF  Augusta. 

This  trial  had  commenced  previous  to  the  meeting  of 
the  Assembly  at  Augusta,  so  far  as  that  Dr.  William 
Adams,  pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  that 
city,  had  given  notice  to  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  meet- 
ing at  Waynesville,Ga.,on  the  I7th  of  April,  188(5,  that  he 
would  undertake  to  make  out  charges  against  Dr.  AVood- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  559 

row.  The  indictment  had  also'  been  drawn  np,  with  tlie 
charges  and  speciiications  duly  presented,  and  it  had  been 
duly  served.  The  actnal  trial  took  place  at  the  next  meet- 
ing of  presbytery,  Aiignst  IGth,  at  the  little  elinrch  of 
Bethany. 

I  get  the  official  documents  1  am  about  to  present,  all 
duly  signed,  from  a  pamphlet  of  some  eighty  pages  octavo 
or  more,  whose  title  page  reads  thus :  "Record  and  Evi- 
dence in  the  Case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  (Kev.  Dr.  William  Adams,  Voluntary 
Prosecutor)  vei'sus  James  Woodrow.  Printed  at  the 
Presbyterian  Publishing  House,  Columbia.  1888." 
This  pamphlet  contains  the  record  and  evidence  taken 
from  the  presbytery's  minutes,  and  also  all  the  printed 
papers  referred  to  in  the  indictment.  It  also  contains  the 
records  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  which  succeeded  this 
presbytery's  meeting. 

Rkcord  in  the  Case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  versus  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  August  16,  1886. 

The  Moderator  charged  tlie  court,  and  the  indictment  was  then 
read  as  follows : 
To  the  Preshyiery  of  Augusta,  Get.,  Waynesboro,  Ga.,  April  17,  1886: 

Dear  Brethren  :  In  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  I,  William  Adams,  a  member  and  minister  of  the 
Augusta  Presbytery,  do  hereby  charge  and  accuse  the  Rev.  James 
Woodrow,  D.  D.,  a  member  and  minister  of  the  same  presbytery, 
with  the  following  offences : 

1.  Teaching  and  promulgating  opinions  and  doctrines  in  conflict 
with  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  interpreted  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Larger  and  i>thortcr  Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly- 

In  that  the  said  James  Woodrow,  on  the  7th  day  of  May,  1884,  in 
an  address  on  evolution,  delivered  before  the  Alumni  Association  of 
the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary,  and  in  the  Southern  Presbyte- 
rian newspaper  of  August  21,  1884,  August  28,  1884,  and  October 
15,  1885,  and  in  speeches  made  in  the  Synods  of  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama  and  South  Georgia  and  Florida,  also  in  an  article 
published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  of  January,  1885, 
did  teach  and  promulgate  that  the  body  of  Adam  was  probably  the 
product  of  evolution  from  the  body  of  some  lower  animal. 

2.  That  the  said  James  Woodrow,  in  the  publications  and  speeches 
referred  to,  did  teach  and  promulgate  opinions  which  are  of  a  dan- 


560  MY  lifp:  xVNd  times. 

gerous  tendency,  and  wliicli  arc  calculated  to  unsettle  the  mind  of 
the  church  respecting  the  accuracy  and  authority  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  an  infallible  rule  of  faith — 

In  that  he  did  teach  and  promulgate  the  opinion  that  the  body 
of  Adam  was  probably  not  made  or  created  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
as  is  universally  understood  by  the  cliurch  to  be  the  declaration  of 
the  word  of  God,  but  of  organic  matter  preexisting  in  the  body  of  a 
brute. 

Against  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church  and  the  honor  and 
majesty  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  King  and  Head  thereof. 

William  Adams. 

Witnesses:  Rev.  J.  L.  Girardeau,  D.  D.,  of  Columbia,  S.  C. ;  Rev. 
J.  L.  Rogers,  of  Atlanta,  Ga. ;    Mr.  J.  W.  Wallace,  of  Augusta,  Ga. 

The  answer  of  the  accused  was  heard,  which  was,  "I  am  not 
guilty." 

Dr.  ^^'oodrow  said :  I  here  formally  recognize  as  my  own  produc- 
tion, as  accurately  representing  what  I  said  at  the  times  specified, 
all  that  is  contained  in  my  published  Address  on  Evolution,  May  7, 
1884,  and  in  my  published  speech  before  the  Synod  of  South  Caro- 
lina, October  27  and  28,  1884.  I  also  recognize  as  my  own  produc- 
tion the  articles  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  newspaper  of  August 
21,  1884,  August  28,  1884,  October  15,  1885,  referred  to  in  the  in- 
dictment. I  also  state  that  I  made  speeches  containing  the  same  or 
similar  sentiments  and  views  before  the  Synods  of  Georgia,  Ala- 
bama, and  South  Georgia  and  Florida,  and  that  I  do  now  hold  and 
believe  to  be  true  everything  that  is  set  forth  in  any  of  these  publi- 
cations and  speeches. 

Evidence  for  the  Prosecution. 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  L.  Girardeau  was  sworn  as  a  witness: 
Question  by  Dr.  Adams :  Did  you  or  not  hear  Dr.  Woodrow's  ad- 
dress before  the  Alumni  Association,  and  also  before  the  Sj'nod  of 
South  Carolina  on  the  subject  of  Evolution?  Answer.  I  heard  Dr. 
Woodrow's  address  before  the  Society  of  Alumni,  and  I  heard  his 
speeches  before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at  Greenville  October, 
1884. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  was  the  effect  of  those  addresses  on  your  own 
mind?  A.  The  etTect  of  the  address  before  the  Society  of  Alumni 
was  about  this:  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  argue  the  case  before 
this  court,  but  simply  to  give  evidence  as  a  witness.  The  first  effect 
upon  my  own  mind  was  that  of  surprise  when  I  heard  his  address 
before  the  Society  of  Alumni.  I  had  never  heard,  so  far  as  I  could 
recollect,  Dr.  Woodrow  advance  the  same  position  in  regard  to  evolu- 


controversip:s  of  science.  561 

tion  before  that  time.  I  was  gratified  with  the  ability  displayed  in 
the  address.  I  felt  a  natural  pride  in  it  as  an  intellectual  achieve- 
ment, because  1  was  a  colleague  with  Dr.  VVoodrow  in  the  same 
Seminary,  and  wished  him  success  in  meeting  the  requirements  of 
the  occasion,  and  therefore,  after  the  delivery  of  the  address,  I  ad- 
vanced to  Dr.  Woodrow  and  offered  him  my  congratulations.  I  was 
at  first  in  doubt  as  to  the  full  meaning  of  what  Dr.  Woodrow  said. 
Subsequently  I  studied  tlie  address  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
lie  had  advocated  evolution  under  limitations  upon  grounds  of  prob- 
ability. The  effect  on  my  mind  of  the  speeches  at  Greenville  was 
the  conviction  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  at  that  time  a  pronounced 
evolutionist,  with  the  limitations  which  he  himself  threw  around 
his  theory.  I  say,  further,  that  during  the  interval  between  the 
delivery  of  the  address  and  the  delivery  of  the  speeches,  having  be- 
come convinced  that  the  publication  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  would 
seriously  agitate  the  church,  I  went  to  him  personally  and  ac- 
xjuainted  him  with  the  posture  of  my  own  mind  on  the  subject,  stat- 
ing to  him  that,  as  his  colleague,  I  could  not  oppose  his  view,  even 
privately,  without  first  apprising  him  of  the  convictions  of  my  own 
mind,  and  then  having  so  stated  my  own  view  to  him,  and  feeling 
that  I  must  oppose  his  view,  I  determined,  in  accordance  with  a 
resistless  sentiment  of  honor,  to  resign  my  professorship  in  the 
■Seminary. 

Q.  From  your  own  knowledge  of  the  condition  of  our  church,  can 
you  say  whether  or  not  those  addresses  have  been  hurtful  to  the 
■church  of  God?  A.  I  have  some  hesitation  in  answering  that  ques- 
tion. I  cannot  be  the  judge  of  ultimate  results.  Of  course,  there 
has  been  agitation  in  the  church,  but  whether  the  ultimate  result 
will  be  beneficial  or  hurtful,  it  is  not  for  me  as  a  witness  to  say. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  Columbia  Semi- 
nary as  a  professor?  A.  About  ten  years.  From  January,  1876,  to 
May  of  this  year. 

Q.  Is  this  a  copy  of  the  constitution  of  the  Seminary?    A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  subscribe  to  Sec.  3,  Art.  5?  A.  I  subscribed  to  the 
pledge  contained  in  the  article.  I  subscribed  to  that  pledge,  written, 
I  think,  in  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  submitted  to  the 
General  Assembly  in  1876. 

Q.  Eead  that  article.     (Sec.  3,  Art.  5,  read  by  the  witness.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  same  pledge  is  required  of  every 
other  professor  in  the  Semhiary?  A.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  been 
present  when  that  pledge  was  subscribed  by  any  other  professor. 
(Corrected.  I  think  I  was  present  when  Drs.  Boggs  and  Hemphill 
signed  the  pledge.)  So  far  as  I  know,  the  pledge  was  in  every  copy 
•of  the  constitution,  and  I  presume  they  all  signed. 

Dr.  Woodrow  here  said,  "I  signed  that  pledge." 


502  MY   LIFK   AND  TIMES. 

Q.  Did  you  not  liear  Dr.  Woodrow  refer  in  his  Greenville  speech 
to  his  having  signed  this  pledge?     A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  In  the  speech  you  heard  in  South  Carolina,  state  whether  there 
was  any  reference  to  any  exceptions  taken  to  any  part  of  that 
pledge?  A.  He  did  reply  to  some  allegations  made  by  myself.  All 
the  authority  I  had  for  anything  said  on  that  subject  was  derived 
from  Dr.  Woodrow's  inaugural  address  before  the  Synod  of  Georgia, 
and  then,  so  far  as  I  know,  he  did  not  file  an  exception  formally  to 
any  part  of  the  standards,  but  in  the  inaugural  address  defined  his 
position  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  globe,  affirming  to  be  cer- 
tainly true  in  regard  to  that  matter  what  was  contrary  to  the  his- 
toric sense  of  the  standards. 

Q.  Did  he  take  any  exception  to  any  other  article  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  or  Catechisms  of  the  church?  A.  I  have  already  said  that 
Dr.  Woodrow  did  not  take  formal  exception  at  first  to  any  article  so 
far  as  I  understood  him.  But  after  the  question  of  his  installation 
as  professor  had  been  settled  by  the  authority  competent  to  act  in 
the  case,  he  then  pronounced  true  his  geological  view  as  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  globe.  At  the  same  time  I  did  not  understand  Dr. 
Woodrow  to  say  that  this  view  contravened  the  standards,  whatever 
my  belief  may  have  been  in  regard  to  the  matter.  In  the  Synod  at 
Greenville  he  advocated  his  view  of  evolution,  which  was  argued 
against  as  contrary  to  the  standards,  but  which  he  himself  affirmed 
to  be  not  inconsistent  with  them.  I  cannot,  then,  say  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  took  exception  to  any  part  of  the  standards  while  he  ad- 
vocated that  view,  though  I  myself  charged  him  with  contradicting 
the  standards  by  it. 

Q.  Did  you  know  then  of  any  other  minister,  in  fact  of  any  scien- 
tist, who  held  tlie  same  views  as  the  defendant  then  advocated  with 
respect  to  the  creation  of  Adam  and  Eve?  A.  At  the  time  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  address  I  did  not  know  of  any  minister  who  held  the 
same  views.  My  reading  in  science  is  limited.  So  far  as  it  went,  I 
did  not  know  of  any  scientific  man  who  held  the  same  views.  At  the 
meeting  of  the  Synod  in  Greenville  I  met  one  person,  a  member  of 
the  Synod,  who  told  me  he  agreed  with  Dr.  Woodrow.  One  or  two 
others  seemed  to  lean  to  the  view.    Further  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Before  you  heard  those  addresses,  did  you  ever  hear  or  know  of 
such  a  construction  placed  upon  the  word  of  God  or  the  standaids 
of  the  church  with  respect  to  the  creation  of  man  as  the  construction 
placed  by  the  defendant  in  those  addresses?  A.  I  remember  having 
read  in  a  certain  commentary  a  view  somewhat  analogous  to  that 
of  Dr.  Woodrow,  as  at  least  not  being  impossible.  That  was  Lange's 
Commentary  on  Genesis;  but  aside  from  that  I  cannot  remember 
having  encountered  the  same  construction  of  the  Scripture.  I  know 
of  no  other. 


CONTKOVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  5G3 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  before  that  time  of  "organic  dust"?  A. 
Never.  If  I  had,  sir,  I  should  have  noticed  it,  for  I  considered  it  the 
most  extraordinary  combination  of  words  I  had  ever  heard. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whetlier  that  combination  is  to  be  found  in  dic- 
tionary, vocabulary  or  lexicon?  A.  No,  sir;  I  could  not  well  have 
met  that  combination  of  words  in  a  dictionary  or  vocabulary  or  lex- 
icon, for  they  do  not  give  words  in  combination,  except  in  illustra- 
tive examples,  and  I  say  in  brief,  I  never  met  that  combination  in 
any  writer,  so  far  as  I  can  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  the  defendant  was  before  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina,  his  having  said  anything  respecting  a  change  in  his 
views  on  this  subject  between  the  time  of  his  inaugural  address  as 
Perkins  Professor,  and  the  time  of  the  address  before  the  Synod, 
and  if  so,  can  you,  as  nearly  as  possible,  tell  the  court  what  he  said  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  that  Dr.  Woodrow  distinctly  said  he  had 
undergone  a  change  of  view.  I  do  remember  that  he  gave  an  account 
of  a  visit  to  Europe,  and  of  his  having  held  interviews  with  distin- 
guished scientific  men,  he  being  at  that  time  opposed  to  evolution.  I 
also  heard  him  advocate  his  hypothesis  of  evolution  powerfully  be- 
fore the  Synod.  Not  my  business  to  draw  inferences  as  a  witness. 
He  did  not  speak  of  his  change  of  views,  so  far  as  I  remember.  He 
did  advocate  evolution  in  my  hearing. 

Q.  Were  you  or  not  aware  of  any  unrest  among  the  students  of 
the  Seminary  with  respect  to  the  teachings  of  Dr.  Woodrow  previous 
to  the  address  before  the  Alumni  Association?  Asked,  objected  to, 
and  withdrawn. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  effect,  so  far  as  you  know,  of  these  ad- 
dresses upon  the  minds  of  the  students  of  Columbia  Seminary?  A. 
The  question  is  a  general  one,  and  I  scarcely  know  how  to  answer. 
The  elfect,  so  far  as  I  knew,  was  to  produce  great  discussion,  but  I 
knew  certainly  of  no  student  wno  adopted  Dr.  Woodrow's  view  of 
evolution.  There  was  one,  of  whom  I  cannot  speak  confidently,  who 
may  have  leaned  that  way. 

Q.  Do  you  subscribe  to  the  Southern  Preshyterian?    A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  reading  a  letter  of  mine  in  that  paper  in  which 
I  charged  the  defendant  with  declaring  before  Augusta  Presbytery 
that  he  had  four  thousand  constituents,  to  whom  he  was  teaching 
these  views;  and  do  you  recollect  or  not,  in  a  subsequent  issue  of 
his  paper,  his  saying  that  this  statement  was  substantially  true, 
only  that  the  number  was  underestimated?  A.  I  do  remember  the 
facts  you  mention.  I  am  not  positively  sure  as  to  the  language  of 
Dr.  Woodrow.    I  remember  the  facts. 

Q.  May  I  ask,  as  an  expert  and  professor,  what  is  the  origin  of 
this  doctrine  of  evolution?  Is  it  an  outcome  of  the  research  of  the 
church  of  God,  or  has  it  an  infidel  oiigin?    A.  The  origin  of  the  doc- 


564  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

trine,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  philosophical.  I  have  no  idea  that  it 
originated  in  Christian  research.  Who  first  originated  it,  I  cannot 
tell.  But  the  doctrine  of  evolution  has  been  used  for  infidel  pur- 
poses by  the  majority  of  those  who  hold  it.  I  do  not  say  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  hypothesis  has  been  so  used. 

Cross-examination  hi/  Dr.  Woodrow. 

Q.  Are  you  much  interested  in  the  result  of  this  trial?  A.  I  am 
deeply  interested.  I  have  no  interest  in  seeing  Dr.  Woodrow,  my 
old  colleague,  under  the  ban  of  the  church.  I  cherish  no  malice 
against  Dr.  Woodrow.  I  forgive  the  injuries  he  has  inflicted  on  me 
personally,  and  continue  to  pray  for  him  and  his  as  heretofore.  But 
I  am  profoundly  interested  in  the  result  of  the  discussion  of  his 
view. 

Q.  Please  state  to  the  presbytery  how  you  manifested  that  in- 
terest in  seeking  to  influence  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  at 
its  meeting  in  Marietta  in  1884?  A.  In  order  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion I  must  give  the  history  of  the  transaction.  The  Synod  of 
South  Carolina  at  Greenville,  by  a  majority  of  fifty  against  forty- 
five,  voted  to  prohibit  the  teaching  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  in  the 
Theological  Seminary.  I  learned  before  I  left  Greenville,  that  some 
one  had  telegraphed  to  the  office  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  a 
glorious  victory  for  Dr.  Woodrow.  Coming  down  upon  the  train 
after  the  adjournment,  I  heard  the  opinion  expressed  by  several  of 
the  members  of  Synod  that  Dr.  W^oodrow  had  gained  a  substantial 
triimiph.  I  knew  that  Dr.  Mack  was  going  to  attend  the  meeting 
of  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  and  I  sent  a  private  telegram  to  him  im- 
mediately upon  my  arrival  in  Columbia.  The  precise  words  of  the 
telegram  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Are  these  the  words,  "Insist  Synod's  action  was  no  compro- 
mise; was  definitely  anti-Woodrow,  so  intended,  so  was"?  A.  That 
is  the  telegram. 

I  meant,  sir,  to  nail  the  statement  that  the  Synod  of  South  Caro- 
lina had  gone  for  Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  false  statement  as  to  facts,  or 
that  the  action  was  a  compromise  action.  I  had  no  intention  to 
have  Dr.  INIack  use  that  telegram  publicly.  It  was  so  used.  I  am 
responsible  for  it.  It  was  the  truth.  I  was  perfectly  willing. that 
the  trutli  should  be  uttered  and  the  falsehood  denied.  I  remember 
distinctly  pausing  upon  the  composition  of  the  telegram.  The  fii'st 
words  that  occurred  to  me  were  like  these — "Definitely  opposed  to 
Dr.  ^Voodrow's  teaching,"  but  I  put  "anti-Woodrow,"  not  meaning 
that  the  decision  was  opposed  to  Dr.  Woodrow  personally,  but  to 
his  teaching,  and  the  compound  word  "anti-Woodrow"  simply  ex- 
pressed that  state  of  mind.  I  meant  nothing  more  by  it.  Had  I 
known   that   it   would  be   read   publicly.   I   would   have   been   more 


CONTKOVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  565 

cautious.  I  would  have  feared  the  misapprehension  resulting  from 
the  use  of  the  word.  Dr.  Woodrow  knew  that  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Synod  at  Greenville,  I  had  clearly  drawn  the  distinction  between 
him  personally  and  his  teaching.  Do  not  know  if  I  had  the  right  to 
draw  the  inference,  but  I  must  have  undergone  a  great  change  if  I 
made  a  personal  attack  on  Dr.  Woodrow  in  the  telegram.  Dr. 
Woodrow  came  back  from  the  Synods,  and  in  his  paper  deliberately 
affirmed  the  correctness  of  the  report  that  he  had  gained  a  complete 
victory  at  Greenville. 

Q.  You  have  said  you  did  not  intend  that  telegram  to  be  read 
publicly.  How  did  you  expect  it  to  influence  that  body?  A.  There 
were  two  ways  in  which  Dr.  Mack  could  have  insisted  on  the  infor- 
mation communicated  to  him  in  my  telegram:  in  his  conversation 
with  members  of  the  Synod,  and  also  as  a  corresponding  member  of 
the  Synod.  That  is  my  statement  of  my  intention.  I  meant  Dr. 
Mack  to  do  all  that  he  could  do,  but  had  no  design  to  have  the  tele- 
gram published,  and  was  surprised  when  it  was  read. 

Q.  Was  Dr.  Mack  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  South 
Carolina  at  Greenville?    A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  Dr.  Mack  know  what  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  South 
Carolina  was?    A.  He  was  there;    he  must  have  known. 

Q.  Did  your  telegram  in  any  way  increase  that  knowledge?  A.  I 
cannot  conceive  of  any  way  in  which  it  could  have  increased  it. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  The  telegram  served  to  show  your  zeal  in  the  matter?  A.  Oh! 
yes,  sir ;    powerful  zeal ! 

Q.  Dr.  Girardeau,  did  you  write  the  minority  report  presented  to 
Synod  at  Greenville?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  By  whom  was  it  presented?  A.  By  Rev.  Mr.  Webb,  of  the 
Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries. 

Q.  Did  that  report  require  that  the  inculcation  and  defence  of 
Professor  Woodrow's  hypothesis  be  prohibited?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  this  report  adopted?    A.  No. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  was  adopted?  A.  I  remember  tlie  purport, 
but  not  the  words. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  what  action  was  taken  by  the  Synod?  A. 
My  recollection  is  that  it  was  a  very  short  resolution — about  in 
these  words.  Resolved,  That  the  teaching  of  Dr.  Woodrow  on  the 
subject  of  Evolution,  except  in  a  purely  expository  manner,  be  pro- 
hibited in  the  Columbia  Seminary. 

Q.  You  stated  that  the  teaching  was  prohibited;  are  you  willing 
to  say  that  now,  after  the  last  answer?    A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  regard  prohiljiting,  and  prohibiting  except  in  a  certain 
manner,  as  equivalent?  A.  Of  course,  there  is  a  difference  as  to  de- 
gree and  as  to  the  manner.     The  Synod  of  South  Carolina  did  not 


5GG  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

proliibit  Dr.  Woodrow  teaching  in  an  expository  manner,  but  did 
prohibit  his  teaching  in  any  other  than  an  expository  manner. 

Q.  Did  you  publish  in  the  Columbia  Register  your  dissent  from 
my  teaching?  A.  I  did.  I  preached  a  sermon  on  Elijah  at  Carmel 
in  a  Columbia  church,  and  some  one  in  a  paper  mentioned  that  I  had 
attacked  Dr.  Woodrow  in  that  sermon.  I  denied  it  and  expressed 
my  dissent  in  the  Columbia  Negistcr,  and  if  I  had  intended  to  at- 
tack Dr.  Woodrow,  would  have  done  so  openly,  and  not  in  a  sneaking 
way. 

Q.  This  was  the  first  public  expression  of  your  dissent  that  could 
have  reached  Dr.  Woodrow's  ears?    A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  have  forgotten.  Dr.  Girardeau,  that  your  interview  with 
me  was  some  time  after  this  publication  in  the  Register?    A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  stated  as  a  matter  of  some  importance  that  your  fi^st  ex- 
l)rcssed  dissent  from  my  views  was  made  to  me  privately,  before  you 
would  feel  at  liberty  to  express  such  dissent  publicly?  A.  I  do  not 
remember  as  to  the  time — the  relation  between  the  times  of  the 
publication  and  my  interview  with  Dr;  Woodrow.  I  said  to  him 
that  1  would  not  oppose  his  views  without  first  acquainting  him 
with  the  posture  of  my  own  mind. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  an  expression  of  non-concurrence  or  dissent  in  a 
secular  paper  as  opposition?  A.  Non-concurrence  does  not  amount 
to  a  determination  to  oppose.  I  wished  the  community  of  Colum]>ia 
to  know  that  I  did  not  agree  with  Dr.  Woodrow. 

Q.  You  remarked  a  while  ago  that  until  I  delivered  my  address  on 
evolution,  you  had  never  heard  the  combination  of  words,  "organic 
dust."  Did  you  hear  it  then?  A.  I  do  not  rememl)er  whether  those 
words  were  used  in  your  address  or  not.  They  were  freely  used 
subsequently  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  address. 

Q.  In  regard  to  "organic  dust,"  did  you  ever  hear  the  term  "anti- 
^Voodrow"  before  you  used  it?    A.  I  do  not  know  tliat  I  ever  did. 

Q.  Have  you  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  "hypothesis  is  that  Adam 
as  to  his  body  was  born  of  animal  parents"?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  authority  had  you  for  that  statement?  A.  The  authority 
I  had  was  Dr.  Woodrow's  address  before  the  Alumni,  page  17. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  in  my  address  referred  to  that  authorizes  it? 
A.  Yes.  Unless  there  was  extraordinary  supernatural  intervention 
of  Almighty  God  which  was  not  involved  in  the  first  statement,  it 
must  be  inferred  that  the  body  of  Adam,  like  the  body  of  other  ani- 
mals, was  born. 

Q.  Was  it  your  inference  and  not  my  statement?  A.  Yes,  a  good 
logical  inference. 

Q.  Has  any  one  a  right  to  attribute  opinions  to  another  which  are 
only  inferences  from  that  other's  statements?  A.  Yes,  decidedly. 
As  to  the  intention  of  the  person  who  usos  tlie  arguments,  I  have  no 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  567 

right  to  impute  to  him  what  he  disowns;  but  as  to  the  arguments, 
I  have  a  right  to  use  all  logical  inferences  that  grow  out  of  them. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  as  to  Adam 
is,  '"that  Adam  as  to  his  body  was  born  of  animal  ancestry"?  A. 
Yes,  either  in  the  address  or  exposition  following;  as  far  as  my 
recollection  goes,  he  used  the  expression  charged  to  him. 

Q.  Did  Dr.  Woodrow  ever  say  that?    A.  1  do  not  know  that  he  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  was  that  "the 
existence  of  Adam's  body  preceded  for  years  the  formation  of  Eve's 
body"?     A.  Yes,  as  far  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  Did  I  ever  use  that  expression?  A.  I  do  not  know,  but  they 
are  good  and  logical  inferences. 

Q.  Did  Dr.  Woodrow  ever  say  anything  about  the  time  that 
elapsed  between  the  creation  of  Adam's  body  and  that  of  Eve's  body? 
A.  I  do  not  know  that  Dr.  Woodrow  said  as  to  the  exact  time  after 
Adam  was  created,  but  he  did  assert  that  Adam's  body  was  formed 
before  that  of  Eve.  giving  the  Bible  verbiage  as  to  Eve's  formation. 
(Signed)  J.  L.  Girardeau. 

(Placed  in  evidence  two  speeches  by  Dr.  Girardeau  in  the  Synod 
of  South  Carolina.) 

The  documents  referred  to  in  the  indictment  were  here  submitted 
as  evidence. 

Question  by  Rev.  J.  B.  Morton  to  Dr.  Girardeau :  Did  you  say 
that  Dr.  Woodrow's  teachings  were  not  heresy?  A.  I  did.  In  the 
Confession  all  error  that  is  contrary  to  the  standards  is  treated  in 
one  place  as  heresy — so  called  in  that  place.  But  that  is  not  the 
ordinary  theological  sense  of  the  word  heresy,  which  signifies  error, 
implying  a  high  degree  of  pravitj'.  But  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  a 
distinction  is  drawn  between  errors — some  being  treated  as  of  a  high 
degree  of  pravity  and  others  as  not;  and  it  must  be  inquired 
whether  an  error  is  of  a  serious  character  and  threatens  injury  to 
the  cause  of  Christ. 

Question  by  Dr.  Woodrow:  Give  a  formal  definition  of  heresy.  A. 
Heresy  is  a  view  which  involves  a  serious  departure  from  the  funda- 
mental elements  of  the  gospel  or  from  the  vital  teachings  of  the 
Calvinistic  theology. 

Q.  Was  it  heresy  as  now  defined  that  you  said  you  did  not  believe 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  guilty  of?     A.  It  was. 

Question  by  Dr.  Jones:  You  said  that  you  believed  at  the  time 
of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  were  not 
heresy.    Do  you  think  so  now? 

( Ruled  out  of  order  by  ISIoderator,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  Dr. 
Girardeau  was  not  a  member  of  the  court,  and  this  would  be  bring- 


568  MY  LIFE   A^'D  TI^rES. 

ing  an  outside  influence  to  bear  upon  the  body.     An  appeal  taken 
and  not  sustained.     Question  not  answered.) 

(Signed)  J.  L.  Girardeau. 

Evidence  for  the  Defence. 

Dr.  Woodrow  called  as  witness  for  the  defence  the  prosecutor,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams. 

Dr.  William  Adams  sworn: 

Q.  You  prepared  this  indictment?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Had  you  assistance?    I  had. 

Q.  What?  A.  I  had  a  young  gentleman  wiio  acted  as  my  amanu- 
ensis. I  corresponded  with  several  brethren  on  the  subject,  and  I 
wrote  my  indictment  from  the  best  information  I  could  get  from 
friends  of  the  church  of  God,  and  from  law  books  and  the  standards 
of  the  church.    And  I  regard  this  question  as  an  insult. 

Q.  You  refer  to  law  books.  In  ascertaining  what  is  an  offence,  did 
you  employ  the  Book  of  Church  Order  as  adopted  by  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States,  or  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America?  A.  If  the 
defendant  will  examine  the  indictment,  he  will  see  what  books  they 
are  to  which  I  have  referred;  inasmuch  as  the  book  is  there  quoted 
and  chapters  and  sections  referred  to. 

Q.  Where  in  the  Book  of  Church  Order  do  you  find  the  promulga- 
tion of  opinions  which  are  of  a  dangerous  tendency,  and  which  are 
calculated  to  unsettle  the  mind  of  the  church  respecting  the  accu- 
racy and  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  infallible  rule  of 
faith,  described  as  an  oflfence?  A.  The  question  embodies  a  consider- 
able argument.  I  have  the  answer  in  my  argument,  and  I  decline  to 
answer  now.  The  object  of  the  defendant  was  to  perforate  my 
speech. 

Q.  Is  anything  to  be  considered  by  any  court  as  an  offence  or  ad- 
mitted as  matter  of  accusation,  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  such 
from  Scripture  as  interpreted  in  the  standards?  A.  I  decline  to 
answer.  You  will  find  the  answer  in  the  Book  of  Church  Order 
Presbyterian  Church  United  States. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  it  was  not  under  a  recollection  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America?    A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  is  your  object  in  this  prosecution?  A.  My  object  is  cer- 
tainly not  to  kill  you  either  ecclesiastically  or  socially  or  physically, 
not  for  one  moment  to  draw  any  great  gulf  between  you  and  your 
brethren  either  of  presbytery  or  church.  It  is  that  this  court  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  responsible  to  the  church  at  large,  and  for  the 
purity  of  whose  doctrines  it  is  now  responsible  before  God,  shall, 
if  it  find  that  your  teachings  with  respect  to  the  body  of  Adam  are 


CONTROVERSII<;S  OF  SCIENCE.  5 GO 

Contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards  of  the 
church,  admonish  you  to  cease  from  those  teachings  in  any  place, 
shape  or  form. 

Q.  If  I  had  resigned  my  professorship  in  the  Seminary  last  Jan- 
uary, would  you  have  instituted  this  prosecution?  A.  It  is  very 
doubtful.  For  this  reason:  When  I  was  before  the  Synod  of 
Georgia  defending  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  I  made 
use  of  these  words,  "It  is  far  better  that  opinions  of  this  nature, 
though  deemed  erroneous,  should  be  left  to  their  operation  ujjon  the 
mind  of  the  individual  who  entertains  them,  than  that  they  should 
be  elevated  to  an  adventitious  importance  by  being  made  the  subject 
of  judicial  investigation.  I  know  it  is  a  little  hard  upon  the  authors 
of  them  thus  to  treat  them  with  neglect,  but  it  is  invariably  the 
most  eflfective  way  to  cure  themselves  and  to  kill  their  crotchets. 
The  fact  that  the  teaching  of  them  has  been  prohibited  in  the 
Seminary  constitutes  no  ground  of  claim  for  their  examination  by 
presbytery."'  That  was  all  the  length  to  which  I  was  willing  to  go. 
The  defendant  persists  in  remaining  in  the  Seminary,  demanding 
all  along  this  trial,  and  these  repeated  demands  and  refusal  to 
abandon  his  chair  had  much  to  do  with  the  prosecution  of  this  case 
before  the  presbytery.  Had  he  retired  from  the  Seminary,  I  for  one 
was  willing  that  he  should  pursue  these  investigations  to  the  ut- 
most. But  instead  of  that  he  continued  in  the  capacity  of  an  official 
teacher  of  our  church,  and  I  had  no  other  alternative  from  my  sense 
of  duty  to  the  church  of  God,  and  to  the  institution  of  which  I  was 
a  director,  but  to  bring  him  before  this  court. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  use  words  to  this  effect,  "Dr.  Woodrow  remains 
intact,  and  unless  some  good  angel  persuades  him  to  tender  his 
resignation,  his  case  will  come  before  the  Augusta  Presbytery.  That 
body  will  meet  in  this  city  early  in  next  year,  and  steps  will  be  taken 
for  his  trial  upon  the  merits  of  the  question"?  A.  I  did,  O  my 
prophetic  soul ! 

Q.  Then  you  instituted  the  prosecution  because  that  good  angel 
did  not  speak?  A.  I  entered  upon  this  prosecution  not  only  because 
of  all  Dr.  Woodrow  had  said  and  taught  in  the  addresses  before  the 
Alumni  and  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  but  because  of  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  insisting  that  he  must  have  a  trial  before  he  would  surrender 
his  professorship,  and  because,  up  to  the  time  of  the  institution  of 
this  process,  Dr.  Woodrow  was  flooding  the  country  with  his  views. 
My  feelings  deepened  as  the  agitation  went  on. 

Q.  Did  Dr.  Woodrow  ever  say  that  he  either  would  or  would  not 
resign  without  or  with  a  trial?  A.  Every  member  of  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  the  Seminary  understood  that  to  be  his  position.  I 
think  the  church  did  at  large — I  so  understood  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  basis  of  that  understanding?     A.  Dr.  Woodrow 


570  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

wrote  us  a  letter  in  which  he  declared  that  his  honor  was  at  stake, 
and  that  for  his  honor  he  could  not  resign.  Dr.  Woodrow  looked  in 
my  face  at  the  presbytery  in  Augusta  and  said,  "I  am  teaching  it,  I 
have  taught  it,  I  have  four  thousand  constituents  to  whom  I  am 
teaching  it,  and  you  are  responsible  for  it  until  you  give  me  a  trial." 

Q.  Had  that  remark  of  mine  any  reference  to  the  Seminary,  and 
did  it  give  you  reason  to  think  that  when  tried  I  would  change  my 
relation  to  the  Seminary?  A.  I  understood  it  to  embrace  the  entire 
outcome  of  your  mind  on  that  subject  in  the  city  of  Columbia,  in 
the  publications  of  which  you  are  the  editor,  in  the  classes  in  the 
college  where  you  are  a  professor.  I  understand  now  that  if  you  are 
tried  by  your  presbytery,  and  it  finds  your  teachings  are  what  they 
are  declared  to  be  in  the  indictment,  there  is  conscience  enough  in 
the  church  of  God  to  stop  your  teachings. 

Q.  Did  you  offer  Dr.  \^'oodrow  that  you  would  withdraw  this 
prosecution  if  he  would  cease  these  teachings?  A.  I  did;  and  if 
there  is  one  event  in  my  ministerial  history  of  which  I  am  glad,  it  is 
that.  After  tlie  Assembly  had  interpreted  your  teachings  as  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God.  I  then  came  to  you  as  a  brother  and  said 
(Letter  *   in  evidence  read) . 

Q.  What  is  an  offence?  A.  Book  of  Church  Order,  consecutive 
Par.  152,  first  sentence. 

*AUGUSTA,  Ga.,  ilay  -Zlth. 
Rev.  Dr.  James  M'oodroxc : 

Dear  Brother, — Will  you  allow  me  to  address  you  this  letter  upon 
the  issue  still  between  us?  In  your  closing  remarks  before  the  Assem- 
bly yesterday,  you  used  the  following  words  :  "I  have  always  shown 
a  loyal  adherence  to  every  deliverance  of  this  church,"  and  you  imme- 
diately added  this  sentence :  "The  settled  policy  of  our  church  is  that 
an  in  thesi  deliverance  has  no  legal  force,  and  while  it  is  to  be  obeyed 
unless  in  opposition  to  the  constitution  of  our  church  and  the  word  of 
God,  it  is  not  to  be  olieyed  l)y  any  one  who  believes  it  is  in  opposition 
to  these.  To  him  who  so  Ijelieves  it  is  totally  devoid  of  any  sem- 
blance of  authority."  This,  of  course,  leaves  everything  uncertain 
with  regard  both  to  your  and  my  attitude  in  the  controvery  involved 
in  the  charges  which  I  have  preferred  against  you.  I  had  hoped,  and 
still  hope,  the  deliverance  of  the  Assembly  will  induce  you  to  give  an 
assurance  that  you  will  not  further  advocate  your  views  on  evolution 
in  any  way  before  the  church  or  the  public,  and  that  you  will  with- 
draw at  once  from  the  Seminary  ;  and  lest  the  impending  trial  before 
our  Presbytery  should  embarrass  any  such  declaration,  I  was  ready 
to  say  to  you,  that  if  you  felt  inclined  to  give  the  Assembly  such  an 
assurance.  I  would  withdraw  the  charge  against  you.  I  do  not,  of 
course,  ask  you  to  do  this,  although  it  would  not  be  improper  for  me 
not  only  to  ask  it,  but,  in  the  interest  of  our  beloved  church,  to  be- 
seech it ;  but  what  I  do  say  is.  that  if  you  are  now  inclined  to  give 
this  assurance,  I  shall  at  once  declare  the  charges  withdrawn. 
Very  sincerely  yours, 

W.  Adams. 


CONTBOVERSIE8  OF  SCIENCE.  571 

Q.  Did  you  make  that  offer  in  view  of  a  prospective  change  in  my 
principles,  or  is  it  not  confined  to  my  teaching?  A.  I  have  been  all 
along  an  advocate  for  Dr.  Woodrow  to  prosecute  his  investigations. 
I  am  not  here  to  choke  Dr.  Woodrow's  convictions  down  his  own 
throat,  but  I  am  here  to  insist  that  so  long  as  he  subscribes  to  the 
standards  of  our  church,  he  shall  not  officially  teach  anything  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  those  standards. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you,  then,  that  you  are  willing  that  a  fellow- 
presbyter  shall  hold  principles  contrary  to  the  word  of  God?  A. 
No,  sir,  not  if  they  are  fundamental  principles.  I  am  not  willing 
that  an  official  teacher  shall  hold  them  when  he  swears  to  believe  in 
something  else. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  accused  here  as  having  sworn  to  believe  in 
something  else?    A.  That  I  will  develop  in  my  argument. 

Q.  You  are  willing,  without  instituting  prosecution  against  him, 
that  a  fellow-presbyter  should  hold  views  which  are  inconsistent 
with  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church,  and  the  honor  and  majesty 
■of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  King  and  Head  thereof?  A.  No,  when 
that  man  swears  that  he  will  not  hold  those  views.  I  belieA'e  a  man 
may  hold  views  which  are  not  in  harmony  with  our  standards  or 
with  the  word  of  God,  provided  he  does  not  declare  those  views  as  a 
public  teacher.  Take  the  millennimn  and  other  such  minor  ques- 
tions. But  I  hold  that  no  oflicial  teacher  in  our  church  has  a  right 
to  hold  and  teach  any  views  diametrically  contrary  to  our  stan- 
dards. 

Q.  Under  which  of  those  heads  do  you  class  my  views?  A.  Under 
the  latter  and  that  against  the  peace  of  the  churcli. 

Q.  Would  I  have  authority  to  act  as  an  official  teacher  in  the 
church  if  I  withdrew  from  the  Seminary?    A.  Yes. 

Q.  Y^ou  would  then  be  willing  that  I  should  have  authority  to 
preach  and  hold  those  doctrines  at  the  same  time?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Would  you  regard  that  as  consistent  with  duty?  A.  Yes,  I 
•do  not  consider  it  my  duty  to  bring  any  brother  before  a  presbytery 
for  whatever  private  opinions  he  held  in  his  own  mind  or  heart. 

Q.  Suppose  I  was  an  atheist  at  heart  and  did  not  teach  it,  and 
you  should  come  to  know  it,  would  you  regard  it  as  your  duty  to 
prosecute  me?  A.  If  you  said  nothing  about  it  and  were  merely 
holding  these  views  and  prosecuting  your  studies,  I  could  not  bring 
prosecution  against  you  because  I  would  know  nothing  about  them. 

Q.  Suppose  T  had  been  teaching  atheism  and  you  had  instituted 
process  against  me,  would  you  offer,  under  any  circumstances,  to 
withdraw  that  prosecution  if  I  would  promise  to  remain  silent?  A. 
Certainly  not.  But  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  two  cases. 
That  is  fundamental.    This  I  have  never  so  regarded. 

Q.  So  then  my  offence  is  not  sufficiently  grave  as  that  the  mere 


572  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

holdintr  of  my  views  would  constitute  a  ground  for  judicial  process? 
A.  If  the  defendant  held  these  views  to  himself  without  teaching 
them  in  any  shape  or  form,  I  should  not  feel  called  upon  to  institute 
process  against  him:  but  if  he  held  the  views  of  an  atheist,  and  I 
could  bring  those  views  liome  to  him.  then  I  should  be  bound  to 
prosecute  him.  In  the  one  case,  as  is  now  before  us,  1  look  for  ad- 
monition of  the  defendant;  in  the  other  case,  I  should  look  for  ex- 
communication. Dr.  Woodrow  not  only  holds,  but  teaches  his  views. 
The  holding  and  teaching  are  distinct  parts  of  my  charge  against 
him.  If  Dr.  Woodrow  only  held  them,  then  the  question  would  be 
relevant  to  the  case;   but  they  are  both  held  and  taught. 

Q.  Is  the  holding  of  such  views  consistent  witli  tlie  purity  of  the 
church?  A.  I  doubt  whether  it  is.  Holding  them  as  you  hold 
them  now  is  hurtful  to  the  purity  of  the  church. 

Q.  Regarding  the  holding  of  these  views  as  hurtful  to  the  purity 
of  the  church,  you  were  willing  to  withdraw  the  prosecution,  were 
you?  A.  Yes,  provided  the  defendant  would  give  the  assurance  that 
he  would  not  teach  them  in  any  form  and  would  step  down  from  his 
position  as  an  official  teacher. 

Q.  Define  heresy.  A.  All  error  is  heresy.  The  Baptist  is  a  heretic 
from  a  Presbyterian  standpoint;  so  the  Methodists  are  heretics. 
They  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in 
the  standards  of  our  church.  But  the  heresy  which  we  would  regard 
in  an  instance  of  this  sort  must  amount  to  a  direct  contradiction  of 
some  fundamental  truth  of  our  religion,  such  as  the  divinity  of 
Christ  or  other  vital  doctrines. 

Q.  You  have  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  not  guilty  of  heresy,  have 
you  not?  A.  I  have,  in  tlie  sense  of  violating  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  In  what  sense  did  you  say  Dr.  Woodrow  is  guilty  of  lieresy? 
A.  Book  of  Church  Order,  consecutive  Par.  200.  I  draw  a  distinction 
between  the  violation  of  a  fundamental  truth  and  the  teaching  of 
a  doctrine  on  an  unessential  subject  to  salvation  contrary  to  God's 
word  as  interpreted  in  the  standards.  The  one  I  regard  as  heresy, 
the  other  as  error.  (The  point  of  order  was  here  raised  that  this 
question  related  to  Dr.  Adams's  opinion,  and  should  not  be  answered. 
The  Moderator  ruled  that,  as  this  class  of  questions  had  been 
allowed  to  go  on  so  long,  this  would  also  be  allowed.) 

Q.  Then  my  error  does  not  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion?  (With- 
drawn.) 

Q.  Have  you  ever  said  that  my  "views  placed  the  Bible  on  trial, 
Presbyterian  Church  on  trial,  and  struck  at  the  very  vitals  of  re- 
vealed religion"?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  But  that  is  not  the  higher  heresy?    A.  It  is  not. 

(Signed)  Wm.  Adams. 


CONTROVEKSIES  OF  SCTP:XCE.  573 

Dr.  Adams  cross-exatnines  himself. 

Q.  Why  did  you  say  that  at  the  Synod  of  Georgia  and  then  after- 
wards modify  your  views  on  the  subject?  A.  I  was  tlien  in  the 
presence  of  a  man  who,  for  the  first  time,  had  come  before  our  Synod 
to  advocate  and  chiim  the  right  to  teach  and  hold  the  views  which 
he  had  advanced  in  his  addresses  before  the  Ahimni  Association  and 
the  Synod  of  South  Carolina.  I  was  also  in  the  presence  of  a  con- 
siderable body  of  brethren  who  appeared  to  be  in  sympathy  with 
liini  and  to  sustain  him  in  the  Synod.  This  man  was  a  professor  in 
■one  of  our  sacred  schools  of  learning,  and  among  those  who  sympa- 
thized with  him  was  another  professor  in  the  same  institution.  I 
saw  then,  what  I  believe  I  see  now,  that  if  that  doctrine  were 
allowed  by  the  Synods  controlling — or  one  of  the  Synods — the  pro- 
fessor and  the  institution,  the  very  Synod  of  which  he  was  a  mem- 
ber— to  be  taught  in  its  name  and  by  its  authority  to  the  ministry 
coming  into  the  church,  that  it  would  not  only  strike  at  the  very 
vitals  of  our  church,  but  that  our  church  must  necessarily  crumble 
to  pieces  under  such  teaching.  But  when  the  Synod  repudiated  the 
views  that  were  then  advocated,  and  appointed  and  authorized  its 
representatives  as  directors  of  the  Columbia  Seminary  to  take  what- 
■ever  steps  were  necessary  to  stop  this  teaching,  my  views  then,  as  to 
the  eftects  of  the  teaching,  were  considerably  modified.  When,  there- 
fore, I  had  to  come  officially  to  consider  whether  the  views  held 
by  the  defendant  could  be  fairly  classified  under  the  head  of  gross, 
flagrant  heresy,  I  could  not  so  designate  them.  And  after  this 
decision  of  the  Synod,  I  was  unwilling  to  arraign  the  brother  before 
a  court  of  the  church  under  this  charge. 

Q.  Will  you  more  fully  explain  wha+  you  mean  in  your  answer  to 
the  questions  as  to  the  definition  of  heresy?  A.  If  the  defendant 
Avere  to  affirm,  to  hold,  and  to  teach  that  the  proper  mode  of  baptism 
is  that  of  immersion,  and  only  adult  believers  are  proper  subjects 
for  that  ordinance,  he  would  be  liable  to  an  indictment,  under  these 
Tvules  of  Discipline,  for  teaching  and  promulgating  an  opinion  and 
doctrine  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards 
of  this  church.  Technically  I  admit  that  our  Book  would  hold  him 
under  the  charge  of  heresy,  inasmuch  as  it  would  be  an  offence 
wliich  would  be  a  proper  object  of  judicial  process.  But  no  man, 
living  or  dead,  could  induce  me  to  speak  of  him  as  a  heretic.  1 
would  still  hold  that  he  was  in  error,  and  such  error  as  would  in- 
volve judicial  censure.  But  if  he  came  before  this  presbytery  under 
the  charges  of  an  atheist  or  a  Socinian,  if  he  denied  the  atonement 
of  Christ  or  repudiated  any  other  saving  truth  of  the  Christian 
religion,  then  I  would  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  him  as  a  heretic.  I 
admit  that  the  Book  would  hold  him  for  both  offences  under  the 
.same  charge  of  iieresy:    but  I  hold  that  the  Book  itself  makes  a  clear 


574  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

distinction  between  these  two  kinds  of  heresy,  inasmuch  as  it 
makes  a.  distinction  between  the  kinds  of  censure  which  the  court 
has  to  pronounce  upon  the  person  found  guilty  under  these  rules. 
I  think  that  these  degrees  of  censures  are  deposition,  suspension  and 
admonition;  and,  therefore,  while  I  fully  admit  that  the  definition 
of  the  Book  and  my  general  way  of  talking  and  thinking  on  this 
subject  are  different,  and  as  I  cannot  hold  any  man  as  a  heretic  who 
does  not  repudiate  some  saving  truth  of  our  religion,  yet  I  am 
conscious  that  the  Book  does  itself  technically  so  regard  him. 

(Signed)  Wii.  Adams. 

For  the  Prosecution.* 

Dr.  Adams,  in  behalf  of  the  prosecution,  said  he  was 
glad  that  at  last  this  nuieh-agitated  matter  was  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  calm  judicial  investigation,  or  what  so  far  had 
been  such.  He  appealed  for  the  dignity  of  the  secular 
courts  and  the  mechanical  and  professional  forbearance  of 
lawyers. 

No  question  of  moral  character  was  at  stake.  The  only 
point  was  the  correctness  of  the  views  held  and  taught  by 
Dr.  James  Woodrow.  Were  they  in  accord  with  the  scrip- 
tures as  interpreted  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  stan- 
dards ?  Let  us  divest  the  question  of  personal  feeling, 
said  he.  There  is  no  room  for  prejudice.  Let  the  ques- 
tion come  up  on  its  merits — the  law  and  the  evidence. 
This  is  no  time  for  sympathy  or  partisanship.  Let  each 
man  go  into  his  own  conscience  and  ask  before  God 
what  is  the  truth  in  this  case.  This  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant cases  that  ever  came  into  the  courts  of  this  church. 
We  are  friends  to  Christ — to  his  church  and  his  truth — 
and  human  friendship  cannot  stand  before  these.  We 
stand  before  a  crisis  in  the  church.  Fidelity  to  the  de- 
fendant, our  own  convictions  and  consciences,  to  the 
church  of  Christ — which  church  is  the  prosecutor,  and 
not  the  Imnible  speaker — demands  impartial  judgment. 
We  are  not  called  on  to  try  Dr.  Woodrow  on  the  question 
of  evolution,  either  as  an  abstract  principle  or  scientific 
hypothesis.     Evolution  is  the  road  along  which  he  has 

*  This  outline  of  Dr.  Adams's  argument  is  copied  from  the  Au- 
gusta Chronicle.  The  argument,  at  least  the  greater  part  of  it,  was 
written,  and  was  read  to  the  presbytery. 


CONTKOVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  575 

come,  and  which  has  landed  him  where  he  is.  Hence  we 
have  only  to  do  with  evolution  as  it  relates  to  the  charge 
of  teaching  opinions  and  doctrines  against  scripture  as 
interpreted  hj  the  standards  of  this  church. 

First  charge — Teaching  and  promulgating  doctrines 
contrary  to  scripture  as  inteTpreted  by  the  standards.  Dr. 
Adams  read  from  the  alumni  address  delivered  by  Dr. 
Woodrow  in  May,  1884,  in  Columbia.  He  read  Dr. 
Woodrow's  definition  of  evolution. 

Then  he  proceeded  to  set  forth  what  he  conceived  to  be 
the  dangerous  errors  which  must  flow  from  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  hypothesis. 

This,  then,  is  the  road  along  which  Dr.  Woodrow  has 
travelled.  ISTow,  let  us  see  where  it  has  left  him.  He  be- 
lieves that  God's  word  teaches  that  man's  soul  was  im- 
mediately created — his  spiritual  nature  came  into  ex- 
istence by  a  fiat  of  the  Almighty.  Eve  Avas  not  derived 
from  ancestry,  but  was  miraculously  formed  by  the  Al- 
mighty. As  Adam's  body  was  derived,  the  higher  from 
the  lower,  then  Adam,  so  far  as  he  is  an  animal,  must  have 
been  formed  as  other  animals,  by  evolution.  There  is  no 
suggestion  of  divine  supernatural  intervention.  Had  he 
been  combating  the  interposition  of  God,  he  could  not 
have  stated  his  argument  more  clearly,  more  strongly. 
That  is  in  fact  what  he  does  state.  Then  xVdam  is  formed 
as  other  animals.  The  spiritual  nature  had  especial 
divine  intervention  to  create  it,  he  says.  Dr.  Woodrow 
makes  distinct  recognition  of  divine  intervention.  On 
this  point.  Dr.  Woodrow  had  said  he  did  not  know  what 
dift'erence  obtained  in  the  birth  of  a  horse  and  of  Adam's 
body — created  from  ancestors  unlike  themselves  and 
passing  through  the  same  kind  of  changes.  God  made  the 
form  from  which  each  sprang  to  pass  through  similar 
changes.  Dr.  Woodrow  knew  of  nothing,  he  said,  in  the 
Bible  to  contradict  this  view.  Then,  just  as  the  horse 
came,  Adam  came.  You  must  say  to-day,  is  this  to  be  a 
doctrine  in  your  church,  founded  on  the  scriptures,  as  in- 
terpreted by  the  standards  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  make 
this  admission  ? 

'Tor  myself,"  said  Dr.  Adams,  ^'I  am  not  afraid  to 
trust  the  answer  to  this  question  to  you." 


576  MY  T.TFK   AM)   TIMES. 

Dr.  Adams  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow  had  used  the  terms 
"probably  true,"  '"does  it  not  seem  probable,"  etc.  "Does 
this  mean  that  the  Doctor  is  trying  to  bore  a  loophole  in 
an  emergency  like  the  present,  or  that  he  is  not  certain 
abont  his  own  views  ?  I  could  wish  that  the  gentlenum 
had  had  greater  courage  of  his- convictions.  It  is  just  this 
sort  of  statement  that  involves  serious  and  fatal  conse- 
quences the  world  over.  Insinuation  is  dangerous  and 
far  reaching.  All  this,  too,  is  to  say  that  the  standards  of 
the  church  are  "probabl,y  false."  If  he  has  gone  this 
length  in  carrying  a  doctrine  which  he  believes  to  be  only 
"'probably  true,"  he  has  a  tremendous  responsibility.  But 
we  are  led  to  believe  that  he  has  studied  the  whole  ques- 
tion, and  believes  in  it.  Has  this  change  in  his  views  of 
late  years  been  made  merely  to  a  peradventure  'I  He  was 
a  believer,  however,  that  the  reasons  against  the  theory  of 
evolution  are  of  little  weight,  and  that  there  are  many 
good  grounds  to  believe  that  it  is  true.  We  are  to  accept 
his  authorities  cited  as  an  evidence  of  the  fixedness  of  his 
views.  He  first  confronted  the  question  as  an  opponent, 
then  as  a  doubter,  and  finally  a  disciple. 

"The  question  is  not  whether  or  not  evolution  is  taught 
in  the  Bible,  but  what  do  the  scriptures,  as  interpreted 
by  our  standards,  speak  of  the  creation  of  Adam's  body  'i 
The  scriptures  and  standards  both  speak  of  this  subject. 
To  say  that  they  are  silent  is  foolish  and  misleading.  The 
intention  of  this  is  insulting  to  the  ministry.  The  Bible 
and  the  Confession  of  Faith  both  give  accounts  of  the  im- 
mediate making  of  man.  The  subject  cannot  be  expunged 
from  the  word  of  God.  I  should  hesitate  to  embrace  any 
doctrine  not  found,  as  Dr.  Woodrow  says  his  is  not,  in  the 
word  of  God.  When  it  is  on  a  question  of  my  relations  to 
God,  I  will  not  accept  a  doctrine  not  spoken  of  in  the 
scriptures." 

The  defendant  had  received  the  standards  and  Cate- 
chisms of  the  church,  and  had  sworn  to  adopt  them  as 
being  the  combined  wisdom  of  the  church.  Having  sworn 
to  do  this,  he  could  not  exercise  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment to  teach  any  other  doctrine.  "You  may  smile,  my 
brother,  but  this  is  true.  It  may  be  a  bad  doctrine,  but 
when  mv  church  says  one  thing  I  cannot  sav  another. 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  577 

This  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  law  and  the  church. 
l)r.  Woodrow  is  bound  by  the  story  of  creation  in  the 
standards,  just  as  by  other  rules.  There  are  but  two  ways 
of  remedy.  Either  have  the  standards  altered,  or  else 
step  down  and  out !     Xcither  of  these  has  been  done." 

Dr.  Adams  read  rules  of  interpretation.  It  is  not 
needed  to  interpret  what  is  not  obscure  already.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  creation  was  plain, 
and  led  to  nothing  absurd.  This  said  that  man's  body  was 
created  "after  all  other  creatures."  Dr.  Woodrow's  the- 
ory was  that  it  was  being  created  along  with  the  other 
creatures  all  the  time. 

The  standards  are  also  clear  as  to  the  fact  of  the  crea- 
tion. '"How  did  God  create  man  ?"  Was  it  by  slow  pro- 
cess of  evoliition  from  the  body  of  an  insect  or  an  animal  ? 
The  standards  were  not  silent  as  to  the  mode.  If  they 
liad  not  known  how  the  body  Avas  made,  they  would  have 
said  so.  But  the  standards  are  clear  and  explicit.  Thank 
God  for  tlie  answer. 

''He  created  man,  male  and  female,  after  all  other  crea- 
tures"— that  was  when  he  did  it.  ISTow,  how  did  he  do  it  'i 
He  formed  the  body  of  the  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground 
and  the  woman  out  of  the  rib  of  the  man.  He  endowed 
ihem  with  souls  and  made  them  in  "his  own  image."  l^ot 
out  of  one  animal  or  two  animals,  but  out  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground  in  his  own  image. 

'•'WTiy  interpret  what  does  not  need  interpretation  ?  I 
Iiave  sometimes  tliought  that  this  emergency  must  have 
been  foreseen,  and  this  definition  was  put  in  exactly  to 
meet  this  theory. 

"The  church  has  already  accepted  this  interpretation. 
If  the  plain  meaning  of  the  law  is  stated,  the  courts  have 
no  right  to  put  their  interpretation  on  it.  The  intention 
of  the  law-maker  must  be  taken  into  consideration  when 
construing  an  act — not  the  theory  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion, but  the  intendment  of  the  law-maker.  Did  the  West- 
minster divines  mean  to  say  that  the  body  of  man  was 
evolved  ?  Did  they  have  any  such  conception  ?  Did  they 
mean  that  we  could  put  any  construction  we  wanted  on 
this  law?  Until  recently  the  idea  of  evolution  never 
■da^Anied  on  the  student  of  the  Bible.     Xo  new  meaning 


578  MY  LIFE  AND   TIMES. 

should  be  put  into  the  standards  hy  any  stretcli  of  the 
fancy  or  subtlety  of  argument. 

"Dr.  Woodrow  professes  to  have  faith  in  the  absolute 
inerrancy  of  the  word  of  God.  How  does  this  hold  him 
in  the  account  of  the  creation  ?  He  indulges  in  nebulous 
language  in  defining  'dust  of  the  ground.'  He  allows  the 
sharp  definitions  of  the  term  to  disappear.  If  'dust' 
means  what  we  believe  it  to  mean,  and  not  what  he  be- 
lieves it  to  mean,  his  whole  structure  falls  to  the  ground. 
He  builds  his  new  meaning  of  dust  on  the  curse  of  the 
serpent  which  was  condemned  to  eat  dust  all  his  days.  A& 
the  food  of  the  serpent  was  flesh  and  blood  and  bone^ 
therefore  the  body  of  man  was  made  of  flesh  and  blood 
and  bone.  But  the  serpent  was  to  go  forever  on  his  belly ; 
this  proneness  of  his  body  was  to  bring  him  nearer  to  his 
food.  The  defendant  should  have  remembered  this  point 
when  gathering  up  his  dust  theory.  The  sting  of  the 
curse  was  that  he  should  eat  'dust  of  the  ground.'  If  this 
dust  meant  flesh  and  blood  and  bone,  it  was  a  sumptuous 
meal  for  a  curse.    God  did  not  starve  him. 

"The  standards  of  our  church  admit  of  no  such  travesty 
as  this.  Creation  was  a  sudden  and  supernatural  act  of 
God.  The  deliverance  of  the  Augusta  General  Assembly 
was  no  new  princi]ile  ;  but  it  was  an  interpretation  which 
had  been  recognized  long  ago — an  honest  declaration  of 
what  the  standards  meant.  The  standards  were  not  made 
to  enable  the  Bible  to  rush  into  the  arms  of  science.  They 
are  too  staid  to  encourage  this  frolicsome  lover — this 
spawn  of  atheism.     The  Bible  forl)ids  the  banns. 

"The  standards  and  the  defendant  do  not  agree  on  this 
subject.  He  adopts  the  theory  of  man's  descent  by  modi- 
fication. They  say  he  was  created  out  of  dust  of  the 
ground.     Where  is  the  sophism  of  'non-contradiction'  V 

Dr.  Adams  said  this  presbytery,  if  it  should  acquit  Dr. 
Woodrow,  must  declare  the  church  in  error.  The  highest 
court  of  the  church  had  but  three  months  ago  made  its 
declaration.  Shall  it  be  said  that  evolution  is  to  be  en- 
dorsed by  the  Augusta  Presbytery  ?  Your  votes  will  go 
down  to  posterity. 

Dr.  Adams  said  he  considered  it  an  honor  to  come  into 
this  historic  church  with  the  seal  and  chart  of  the  Cove- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  579 

nanters  before  him,  and  be  allowed  to  stand  up  for  truth 
and  for  the  church.  He  had  not  spoken  with  personal 
bitterness.  His  Irish  nature  did  not  admit  of  malice. 
There  was  in  his  heart  no  resentment  towards  his  breth- 
ren. 

He  spoke  for  two  hours  and  forty  minutes,  and  made 
a  powerful  effort. 

For  the  Defence.* 

Dr.  Woodrow  began  by  saying  that  he  had  long  been 
earnestly  desiring  the  coming  of  this  day.  For  more  than 
two  years,  charges  of  heresy,  of  unscriptural  teaching,  had 
been  made  against  him  in  various  regions  by  great  num- 
bers of  persons;  charges  which  he  pronounced  slanders, 
as  long  as  they  were  made  by  those  who  did  not  attempt 
to  prove  them  before  the  proper  tribunal.  Until  now 
these  charges  have  been  constantly  reiterated  by  those 
who  had  not  the  courage  to  formulate  them  and  endeavor 
to  establish  their  truth  in  a  church  court  according  to  law 
— where  the  accused  might  meet  his  accusers  face  to  face. 
Therefore,  whatever  was  the  object  of  this  prosecution, 
even  though  it  might  be  one  with  which  this  presbytery 
had  nothing  to  do,  he  sincerely  thanked  his  prosecutor  for 
having  instituted  it. 

He  had  been  glad  that  at  the  outset  his  prosecutor  had 
strenuously  urged  that  the  case  should  be  tried  according 
to  the  law  and  the  evidence — the  law  being,  of  course,  the 
scriptures  as  interpreted  in  our  standards.  But  he  was 
disappointed  that  he  did  not  adhere  to  this  righteous 
principle,  but  in  the  close  of  his  argument  had  insisted 
that  the  presbytery  should  be  controlled  in  its  judgment, 
not  by  the  law,  but  by  a  deliverance  of  the  Augusta  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  He  trusted  that  no  one  would  thus  be  led 
away  from  right  and  justice. 

He  then  proceeded  to  examine  the  second  part  of  the 

"■  Professor  Woodrow  had  no  notes  of  his  remarks ;  and,  therefore, 
in  this  outline,  it  is  impossible  to  reproduce  his  words.  Many 
things  which  he  said  are  doubtless  omitted,  and  probably  there  are 
some  additions;  but  this  report  is  thought  to  be  a  fair  representa- 
tion of  the  substance  and  general  tenor  of  his  speech. 


nSO  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMRR. 

indictinent,  wliicli  charged  him  with  teaching;  "opinions 
which  are  of  a  dangerous  tendency,  and  which  are  calcu- 
lated to  unsettle  the  mind  of  the  church,"  because  these 
o))inions  are  said  to  be  contrary  to  what  is  "universally 
understood  by  the  church  to  be  the  d(»claration  of  the  word 
of  God."  He  showed  that,  under  our  Rules  of  Discipline, 
such  an  indictment  could  not  stand;  for  according  to 
these  "nothing  ought  to  be  considered  by  any  court  as  an 
offence,  or  admitted  as  a  matter  of  accusation,  which  can- 
not be  proved  to  be  such  from  scripture,  as  interpreted  in 
these  standards,"  Under  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Dis- 
cipline, indeed,  it  is  also  that  "which,  if  it  be  not  in  its 
own  nature  sinful,  may  tempt  others  to  sin,  or  mar  their 
spiritual  edification."  And,  further,  the  test  by  which 
anything  is  proved  to  be  an  offence  is  not  solely  the  scrip- 
ture as  interpreted  in  the  standards,  but  "the  regulations 
and  practice  of  the  church" — that  which  is  "universally 
understood  by  the  church."  But  happily  we  have  no  such 
law.  But  for  the  prosecutor's  denial,  it  would  have  been 
reasonable  to  continue  to  believe  that  he  had  framed  this 
part  of  the  indictment  according  to  the  I^orthern  Disci- 
pline and  not  according  to  ours. 

He  never  had  sworn  and  never  would  swear  that  he 
would  be  guided  by  what  the  church  "universally  under- 
stood," nor  had  they.  It  was  by  the  Bible  and  the  stan- 
dards alone  that  they  could  try  him,  or  that  he  would  con- 
sent to  be  tried. 

It  Avas  at  one  time  "universally  understood"  by  the 
church,  even  at  the  time  when  the  Westminster  Assembly 
was  sitting  and  long  after,  that  the  sun  moved,  and  that 
the  earth  stood  still ;  yet  he  might  hold  the  contrary  doc- 
trine, provided  it  did  not  contradict  the  Bible.  His 
studies  largely  lay  outside  those  with  which  the  church  is 
directly  concerned  ;  and  he  might,  and  no  doubt  did,  hold 
many  beliefs  at  variance  with  what  was  "universally 
understood"  by  the  church ;  but  he  was  guilty  of  no  of- 
fence unless  he  held  beliefs  contrary  to  the  Bible  as  inter- 
preted in  the  standards. 

"As  to  the  special  change  of  view  about  which  so  much 
is  said,  let  me  state  what  it  was.  Twenty-six  or  twenty- 
seven    vears    ago,    when    the   doctrine    of   evolution   was 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  581 

brought  to  the  attention  of  the  thinking  world  in  a  more 
striking  way  than  it  had  ever  been  before,  in  common 
with  most  students  of  natural  history,  I  refused  to  accept 
it  as  true.  After  some  years,  I  reached  the  conclusion 
that,  with  certain  limitations,  its  truth  was  not  a  matter 
that  in  any  way  concerned  the  believer  in  the  Bible,  for, 
with  these  limitations,  it  did  not  in  the  least  contradict 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible.  This  conclusion  was  reached 
while  I  still  thought  that  the  preponderance  of  evidence 
was  greatly  against  its  truth.  I  continued  my  study  of 
various  departments  of  nature  as  industriously  as  I 
could;  and  in  the  spring  of  1884,  when  preparing  an 
address  on  evolution,  I  carefully  summed  up  the  evidence 
I  had  been  accumulating  all  the  previous  years,  and  I  was 
forced  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  preponderance 
of  the  evidence  is  now  in  favor  of  its  truth.  Just  as  soon 
as  I  formed  this  opinion,  I  published  it  to  the  church  and 
to  the  world.  Every  day's  study  since  has  increased  the 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  favor  of  evolution  as 
God's  plan  of  creation,  in  my  opinion ;  while  I  am  still 
far  from  thinking  that  it  is  demonstrated  to  be  true.  I 
am  more  and  more  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  views 
set  forth  in  my  address  and  the  other  articles  enumerated 
in  the  indictment,  and  believe  that  in  proportion  as  they 
are  fairly  and  intelligently  studied  will  they  be  accepted 
as  not  inconsistent  with  the  Bible  as  interpreted  in  our 
standards.  It  was  not  necessary  to  introduce  witnesses  to 
prove  that  I  am  the  author  of  these  addresses  and  edi- 
torial articles.  I  have  no  desire  to  repudiate  my  own 
children — they  are  too  dear  to  me. 

"But  I  now  ask  you  to  examine  the  testimony  to  which 
you  have  listened,  and  consider  its  bearing  on  the  case. 
Remember  that  the  question  you  are  called  on  to  decide  is, 
are  the  opinions  and  doctrines  which  I  have  taught  in 
conflict  with  the  sacred  scriptures  as  interpreted  in  our 
standards  ?  Now,  look  at  the  evidence  relied  on  to  prove 
that  they  are.  Dr.  Girardeau  tells  you  that  when  he 
heard  my  address,  he  was  surprised,  gratified,  and  subse- 
quently that  he  was  convinced  it  would  agitate  the  church, 
that  he  must  oppose,  and,  'in  accordance  with  a  resistless 
sentiment    of   honor,    resign    his    professorship.'      Well^ 


582  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

M'liat  is  there  in  all  this  to  show  that  tlierc  was  anything 
in  the  address  contrary  to  the  scriptures '(  And  what  lias 
all  he  said  as  to  my  inaugural  address  to  do  with  the 
question  of  my  guilt  ?  Or  that  he  had  never  before  heard 
the  expression  'organic  dust'  'I  Or  that  I  had  not  been 
able  to  affect  the  opinions  of  my  students  ?  Or  that  the 
origin  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  philosophical  and 
not  the  result  of  Christian  research  ?  Or  even  that  it  has 
been  used  by  the  majority  of  those  who  hold  it  for  infidel 
purposes  i  Admit  all  this  to  be  true,  how  does  it  prove  or 
in  any  way  affect  the  question  of  my  guilt  ?  In  view  of 
the  utter  worthlessness  of  this  testimony,  I  am  suprised 
that  the  prosecutor  should  have  thought  it  worth  while  to 
bring  this  witness  all  the  way  from  the  middle  of  South 
Carolina  during  this  extremely  hot  weather  simply  to 
give  it.  I  cannot  understand  it.  Can  it  be  that  there 
Avere  additional  objects  ?  Is  it  possible  that  he  brought 
him  in  the  guise  of  a  witness  to  assist  in  the  prosecution, 
or  to  operate  as  the  witness  tells  you  he  desired  and  ex- 
pected his  fellow-worker  to  do  at  the  Georgia  Synod  in 
llarietta  ?  It  surely  cannot  have  been  solely  to  give  the 
testimony  to  Avhich  you  have  listened. 

''But  if  you  suppose  that  the  testimony  of  this  witness 
raises  a  presumption  that  I  must  be  guilty  of  something, 
I  ask  you  to  look  at  it  more  closely,  and  see  how  plainly 
the  bias  of  the  witness  against  the  accused  is  shown,  and 
how  seriously,  though  unintentionally  of  course,  this  af- 
fects the  value  of  his  testimony.  The  answers  of  the 
witness  during  the  cross-examination  show  you  his  zeal — 
his  'powerful  zeal' — in  striving  to  secure  my  condemna- 
tion. And  you  saw  how  it  affected  both  his  memory  and 
his  judgment.  He  told  you  that,  as  my  colleague,  he 
could  not  oppose  my  view,  even  privately,  without  first 
apprising  me  of  the  convictions  of  his  own  mind,  and 
accordingly  he  had  come  to  me  personally  and  acquainted 
me  with  the  posture  of  his  mind — forgetting  that  he  had 
already,  in  a  secular  paper  in  Columbia,  published  to  the 
Avorld  his  opposition  to  his  colleague's  views.  Then  his 
judgment  is  so  affected  by  his  zeal  that  he  tells  you  that 
my  teaching  in  the  Seminary  on  the  subject  of  evolution 
was  prohibited ;    Avlien  in  fact  the  teaching  was  not  pro- 


COXTROVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE.  583 

hibited,  but  merely  was  disapproved,  except  in  a  purely 
expository  manner — the  only  manner  in  which  I  ever  had 
taught  being  purely  expository.  Then  he  oould  not  re- 
member that  I  had  said  at  synod  that  my  views  had 
undergone  a  change;  but  he  remembered  I  gave  an  ac- 
count of  a  visit  to  Europe.  Yet  at  that  meeting  he  heard 
a  letter  from  me  read  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Clark,  in  which  I 
distinctly  stated  the  change;  and  since  then  that  letter 
has  been  published  in  a  journal  which  he  has  told  you  he 
receives.  He  could  remember  nothing  of  that,  but  he 
remembered  that  I  gave  an  account  of  a  visit  to  Europe — 
which  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  matter  in 
hand. 

'Tie  has  told  you  that  evolution  has  been  used  for 
infidel  purposes,  but  did  not  know  that  my  hypothesis  had 
been  so  used.  Why  then  did  he  say  anything  about  it, 
unless  it  was  with  the  intention  of  easting  on  me  the 
odium  which  attaches  to  those  who  hold  doctrines  entirely 
different  from  mine  ?  But  suppose  the  doctrine  did 
originate  with  infidels.  Does  that  prove  it  to  be  false  and 
contrary  to  scripture  'i  Is  chemistry  to  be  condemned  if 
Lavoisier  was  an  infidel  ?  Is  democracy  to  be  scorned 
because  Jefferson  was  an  infidel  ? 

"But  Dr.  Girardeau  tells  you  that  he  has  no  idea  that  it 
originated  in  Christian  research.  lie  is  certainly  right  in 
that  statement.  How  could  it  have  so  originated  ?  Chris- 
tian research  occupies  itself  with  the  Bible,  with  investi- 
gating the  infinitely  important  truth  which  it  contains. 
But  evolution,  as  we  are  now  concerned  with  it,  is  a  doc- 
trine relating  to  natural  history.  How  could  it  occur  to 
any  one  that  it  could  be  otherwise  ?  Everybody  knows 
that.  Surely  it  was  not  necessary  to  bring  this  'expert' 
so  far,  in  hot  weather,  to  prove  it.  But  what  then  ?  Be- 
cause it  did  not  originate  in  Christian  research,  is  it 
thereby  proved  to  be  false  ?  Did  astronomy  originate  in 
Christian  research  ?  Or  geology  ?  Or  any  doctrine  in 
physics,  or  chemistry  ?  Or  any  other  doctrine  in  natural 
history  ? 

"But  further  examine  Dr.  Girardeau's  statement  that 
'the  doctrine  of  evolution  has  been  used  for  infidel  pur- 
poses by  the  majority  of  those  who  hold  it.'     Xow,  how 


584  MY   I.IKE  AND  TIMES. 

does  he  know  that  i  As  he  has  told  yon,  his  reading  in 
science  is  limited.  He  conld  not  know  it  nnless  all  the 
scientific  men  of  the  world  had  been  ])olled  with  refer- 
ence to  this  ])oint  and  the  truth  thus  ascertained.  Has  he 
ever  so  polled  them  i  Has  he  any  evidence  that  it  has 
been  done  ^  He  has  no  such  evidence;  he  could  have 
none.  Therefore,  he  could  not  know  that  what  he  as- 
serted is  true.  Yet  he  has  solemnly  testified  to  it  as  a 
fact,  in  order  to  prove  my  guilt.  I  am  amazed  to  see  any 
one  so  under  the  influence  of  prejudice  as  to  give  such 
testimony." 

Dr.  Girardeau  here  arose.  He  said  he  was  not  a  mem- 
ber of  this  court,  and  had  no  right  here.  But  Dr.  Wood- 
row  had  assaulted  him,  he  said ;  had  maintained  that  he 
was  surprised  at  what  Dr.  Girardeau  had  sworn.  "1  ask," 
said  Dr.  (jirardeau,  "that  Dr.  Woodrow  retract  that  lan- 
guage." 
^  Dr.  Woodrow:  "What  did  1  say?" 

Dr.  Girardeau :  "I  think  he  charged  me  with  perjury." 

Dr.  Woodrow:  "^lost  assurcMlly  I  did  not.  I  only  said 
I  was  surprised  to  find  Dr.  Girardeau  so  under  the  influ- 
ence of  error  as  to  say  that  the  majority  of  those  who  had 
taught  evolution  did  so  for  infidel  purposes,  when  he 
could  not  possibly  know  it  to  be  true." 

Dr.  Girardeau  :  '^If  you  retract  the  charge  of  perjury,  T 
have  nothing  more  to  say." 

Dr.  Woodrow:  '*I  do  not  retract  it,  for  T  did  not  make 
it.  I  will  assure  Dr.  Girardeau  that  I  did  not  charge 
what  he  supposed  I  did." 

Dr.  Girardeau  sat  down. 

"'I  ask  now,"  continued  Dr.  Woodrow,  ''if  you  are  go- 
ing to  convict  me  on  such  testimony  as  this.  I  do  not 
intend  to  discuss  here  the  question  whether  or  not  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  is  true ;  for  I  would  regard  the 
discussion  of  a  question  of  pure  science  as  a  profanation 
of  a  court  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  sole  question 
that  can  rightly  be  considered  here  is,  does  that  doctrine 
contradict  the  scriptures  ? 

"I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  connuent  at  lenotli  on 
Dr.  Adams's  testimony.  It  speaks  for  itself.  It  was 
clearly  shoAvn  that  the  prosecutor's  object  is  not  tbe  pres- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  585 

Lyter,  but  the  professor;  and  that  if  the  professor  had 
only  resigned,  the  presbyter  would  never  have  been  dis- 
turbed. So  it  is  not  the  presbyter  who  is  prosecuting,  but 
it  is  the  Seminary  director  on  his  own  behalf  and  on  be- 
half of  those  who  by  correspondence  and  otherwise  aided 
him  in  this  prosecution.  But  it  is  needless  to  review  tes- 
timony in  which  the  witness  asserts  that  one  holding 
Views  which  placed  the  Bible  on  trial  and  struck  at  the 
vitals  of  revealed  religion'  is  not  guilty  of  holding  that 
which  'violates  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  scriptures.' 
After  the  answers  in  the  direct  examination,  it  was 
hardly  necessary  for  him  to  say,  Avhen  he  was  cross- 
examining  himself,  that  he  'fully  admitted  that  the  defi- 
nition of  the  Book  and  his  general  way  of  talking  and 
thinking  on  this  subject  are  different.' 

"(Joming  now  to  the  prosecutor's  argument,  I  may  say 
that  it  is  hardly  worth  my  while  to  reply  to  it,  for  it  Avas 
based  on  a  total  misconception  of  my  teachings.  He  has, 
in  a  singularly  grotesque  way,  misapprehended  my  views. 
It  would  be  very  unsafe  for  the  presbytery  to  base  any 
action  on  the  interpretation  of  those  views  given  by  the 
prosecutor.  For  example,  he  reads  from  my  address 
(page  15)  to  prove  to  you  that  I  hold  that  the  Bible 
teaches  evolution.  He  overlooks  the  fact  that  I  begin  the 
paragraph  by  saying  that  'if  that  which  is  perhaps  the 
most  commonly  received  interpretation  of  the  biblical 
record  is  correct,'  then  that  is  the  case.  But  it  must  be 
apparent  to  every  reader  of  the  address  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  interpretation  to  be  correct.  And  I  have  said 
over  and  over  in  the  address,  in  many  forms,  and  even  in 
some  of  the  passages  which  Dr.  Adams  read  to  you,  that 
I  believe  'that  the  scriptures  are  almost  certainly  silent  on 
the  subject.'  Hence  this  mistake  of  the  prosecutor  is  in- 
excusable. 

"Again,  he  makes  the  amusing  and  amazing  mistake 
of  regarding  certain  statements  of  fact  in  the  address  as 
parts  of  my  anti-scriptural  teaching.  He  so  understands, 
for  example,  what  I  say  on  page  23 :  'We  cannot  go  back 
to  the  beginning,  but  we  can  go  a  long  way.  The  outline 
thus  obtained  shows  us  that  all  the  earlier  organic  beings 
in  existence,  through  an  immense  period,  as  proved  by  an 


586  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

immense  thickness  of  layers  resting  on  each  other,  were 
of  lower  forms,  with  not  one  as  high  or  of  as  complex  an 
organization  as  the  fish.  Then  the  fish  appeared,  and 
remained  for  a  long  time  the  highest  being  on  the  earth. 
Then  followed  at  long  intervals  the  amphibian,  or  frog- 
like animal,  the  reptile,  the  lowest  mammalian,  then  grad- 
ually the  higher  and  higher,  until  at  length  appeared  man, 
the  head  and  crown  of  creation.'  l^ow,  is  it  possible  that 
Dr.  Adams,  or  any  person  even  slightly  acquainted  with 
these  subjects,  does  not  know  that  I  am  there  stating  a 
familiarly  known  fact '( 

"So  he  quoted  to  you  as  another  part  of  my  hypothetical 
teaching  the  following  from  page  25  :  'While  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  human  embryo  is  at  one  period  an  inverte- 
brate, then  a  fish,  afterwards  a  reptile,  a  mammalian 
quadruped,  and  at  last  a  human  being,  yet  it  is  true  that  it 
has  at  one  period  the  invertebrate  structure,  then  suc- 
cessively, in  a  greater  or  less  number  of  particulars,  the 
structure  of  the  fish,  the  reptile,  and  the  mammalian 
quadruped.  And  in  many  of  these  particulars  the  like- 
ness is  strikingly  close.'  Again  I  ask,  is  it  possible  that  he 
does  not  know  what  is  here  stated  to  be  a  fact  ?  If  he  does 
not  know  it,  is  he  capable  of  discussing  the  subject  ?  Or 
is  it  that  he  is  ashamed  of  ever  having  himself  been  a 
quadruped  ?" 

Mr.  Morton :  "Will  Dr.  Woodrow  please  explain  what 
he  means  by  saying  that  Dr.  Adams  was  once  a  quad- 
ruped ?" 

Dr.  Woodrow:  "1  mean  that  man,  before  birth,  passes 
through  these  intermediary  stages." 

Dr.  Adams:  "Who  said  I  was  ashamed?" 

"iNTow,  if  Dr.  Adams  so  completely,  so  laughably,  mis- 
understands my  address,  not  being  able  to  distinguish 
between  elementary  and  familiarly  knoM^n  facts  and  my 
supposed  anti-scriptural  hypotheses,  can  it  be  worth  while 
for  me  to  attempt  to  reply  to  arguments  based  on  such 
errors  ? 

"Then,  further,  the  prosecutor  has  intimated  to  you 
that  all  that  I  say  as  to  my  regarding  my  hypothesis  as 
only  'probably  true/  as  'seeming'  to  be  so  and  so,  etc.,  is 
the  result  of  mere  cowardice,  and  shows  that  I  have  not 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  587 

the  ^courage  of  my  convictions' ;  chat  it  is  a  mere  trick  by 
which  I  hope  to  have  a  way  of  escape  if  in  danger  of  being 
convicted  of  heresy.  But  he  exultantly  pointed  out  that 
he  had  blocked  up  that  cunningly  devised  way  and  had 
cornered  me — that  every  now  and  then  I  had  forgotten 
myself,  and  at  such  times  had  exposed  my  true  senti- 
ments, showing  that  I  believed  firmly  in  my  hypothesis 
as  absolutely  true,  and  hence  all  I  said  as  to  'probable,' 
'seems,'  and  the  like,  was  a  mere  sham.  And  how  does 
he  prove  this  cowardice  of  mine  and  the  sly  cunning  ?  By 
showing  that  I  state  as  facts,  about  which  there  is  no 
doubt,  the  familiar  truths  quoted  above ! — truths  which 
he  is  incapable  of  distinguishing  from  the  hypothesis  of 
evolution  !  Again  I  ask,  need  I  reply  to  such  arguments  I 
"As  to  Dr.  Adams's  intimation  that  I  ignore  the  agency 
of  God  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  of  j^lants  and  animals, 
and  of  the  body  of  the  first  man,  I  content  myself  with 
referring  to  the  pamphlets  and  articles  enumerated  in  the 
indictment ;  I  am  willing  to  leave  it  to  any  fair-minded 
man  to  say  whether  there  could  possibly  be  a  fuller  recog- 
nition of  God's  present  power  and  agency  in  every  change, 
however  slight,  that  takes  place  in  any  part  of  the  uni- 
verse, than  is  to  be  found  in  them.  But  there  is  a  prac- 
tical atheism  which  fails  to  see  God  except  in  his  extra- 
ordinary and  supernatural  working.  And  those  who  are 
imder  its  influence,  and  who  themselves,  therefore,  fail  to 
recognize  God's  presence  in  all  his  ordinary,  natural  acts, 
instantly  charge  with  a  denial  of  God's  presence  and 
power  those  who  regard  a  certain  change  as  the  result  of 
Ood's  ordinary  methods  instead  of  a  supernatural  inter- 
vention. I  believe  without  difficulty  and  without  hesita- 
tion every  statement  that  God  makes  in  his  word  as  to  his 
adopting  unusual  and  supernatural  ways  of  accomplish- 
ing his  designs ;  but  I  will  always  believe  that  he  adopts 
Tiis  usual  natural  methods,  except  when  he  in  his  word 
gives  me  reason  to  believe  otherwise. 

"The  chief  point  to  be  considered  in  determining  my 
■guilt  or  innocence  I  suppose  to  be  the  meaning  of  God's 
words:  'The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground.'  It  is  contended  by  those  who  believe  me  guilty, 
that  dust  of  the  ground  means  sand,  clay,  limestone,  and 


588  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  like,  in  a  finely  divided  state — inorganic  matter — and 
that  it  can  mean  nothing  else ;  that  to  refuse  to  believe 
that  this  is  certainly  the  meaning  is  to  disbelieve  the  word 
of  God ;  and  hence,  further,  the  formation  of  the  body 
from  the  dust  was  direct,  immediate.  I  maintain,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  while  this  may  be  the  meaning,  it  is  not 
certainly  so ;  but  that  wliile  God  certainly  formed  the 
body  from  the  dust  of  the  ground,  he  may  have  done  so 
indirectly,  mediately ;  that  nothing  is  here  certainly  said 
to  the  contrary ;  that  is,  that  God's  word  does  not  decide 
the  question  one  way  or  the  other.  If  in  saying  this  I  am 
contradicting  the  Bible,  then  I  am  guilty  as  charged  in 
the  indictment ;  if  I  do  not  thus  contradict  it,  I  do  not 
contradict  it  at  all,  and  I  am  innocent  of  the  charge 
brought  against  me.  I  say  nothing  as  to  the  standards ; 
for  they  simply  repeat  the  language  of  the  scriptures ; 
they  do  not  undertake  to  interpret  it.  Hence  it  is  un- 
necessary to  say  more  respecting  them. 

"a^ow  let  me  ask  you  to  accompany  me  as  we  examine 
how  it  pleases  God  to  create  the  plants  and  animals  with 
Avhicli  he  has  covered  the  earth.  You  see  that  he  forms 
the  i)lant  of  earth,  air,  and  water — inorganic  matter ;  but 
as  the  elements  of  the  air  and  the  water  are  found  also  in 
the  earth,  you  may  with  equal  propriety  say  he  transforms 
the  earth  into  the  plant — he  forms  the  plant-world  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground.  You  see,  further,  that  he  constructs, 
the  bodies  of  animals  from  plants ;  the  animal  feeds  on 
the  plant  directly  or  indirectly ;  so  the  Lord  God  is  form- 
ing before  our  eyes  all  his  animals  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground.  What  can  be  more  true,  then,  than  the  assertion 
you  are  ready  to  make,  that  God  has  formed  and  is  form- 
ing everything  that  has  life,  whether  vegetable  or  animal, 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground  ?  Xow,  is  it  not  possible  that  it 
is  in  this  sense  that  God  tells  us  that  he  formed  man  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground  ? 

"Before  you  decide  that  this  cannot  be,  remendjer  that 
it  is  extremely  common  for  God,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  his  word,  to  tell  us  that  he  does  a  certain  thing, 
mentioning  the  fact  that  the  thing  done  is  his  act,  but 
without  saying  anything,  or  if  anything,  very  little,  as  to 
his  method  of  doing  it.    He  speaks  of  tlic  cause — liim^elf,, 


CONTROVKKSIES  OF  SCIEXCE.  589 

and  of  the  last  step — the  thing-  done ;  but  in  multitudes  of 
cases  he  tells  us  little  or  nothing  as  to  the  intermediate 
steps.  Such  information  would  not  be  germane  to  the 
design  he  has  in  making  known  to  us  his  will.  Consider 
further  the  scripture  usage  of  the  word  dust — numerous 
examples  must  be  familiar  to  you — and  I  think  that  you 
will  hesitate  long  before  you  decide  that  it  is  impossible 
that  my  suggestion  may  be  true,  and  that  I  am  certainly 
thereby  contradicting  God's  word.  The  more  I  study 
that  word,  comparing  scripture  with  scripture,  the  more 
fully  convinced  I  am  that  what  I  have  said  is  not  contrary 
to  it ;  that  it  is  impossible  to  assert  positively  that  God's 
S])irit  would  here  teach  us  anything  whatever  as  to 
whether  the  formation  of  man's  body  from  the  dust  of  the 
ground  was  mediate  or  immediate. 

''You  have  been  told  by  Dr.  Girardeau  in  his  published 
speeches  and  here  on  the  witness  stand  that  my  hypoth- 
esis is  that  'Adam  as  to  his  body  was  born  of  animal  par- 
ents;' that  'Adam  as  to  his  body  was  born  of  animal  an- 
cestry;' that  'the  existence  of  Adam's  body  preceded  for 
vears  the  formation  of  Eve's  body.'  When  he  so  signally 
failed  to  find  any  such  statements  in  my  writings,  he 
insisted  that  his  statements  were  good  logical  inferences 
from  what  I  had  written,  and  therefore  that  he  had  a 
right  to  attribute  them  to  me. 

"Let  us  test  the  propriety  of  this  by  considering  the 
view  that  God  formed  man  immediately  of  inorganic  mat- 
ter— of  sand,  clay,  limestone,  etc.,  in  a  finely  divided 
state.  Having  first  fixed  our  attention  on  the  mass  from 
which  God  was  al)out  to  form  man,  let  us  next  trace  the 
history  of  the  particles  composing  it,  as  far  as  we  can.  In 
common  with  all  the  rest  of  the  matter  of  the  earth,  these 
particles  were  created  millions  of  years  ago.  Follow 
them  back  as  far  as  possible,  and  you  will  find  that  at  one 
time  they  constituted  parts  of  rocks  more  or  less  like 
granite  in  widely  separated  parts  of  the  world ;  these  ex- 
posed to  the  weather  gradually  crumbled  to  powder ;  and 
the  loose  particles  were  carried  by  rills  of  water  down 
into  larger  streams,  and  so  at  length  to  the  ocean.  Here 
some  were  tossed  by  the  tides,  others  sank  into  the  depths, 
but  all  after  awhile  were  made  to  unite  with  neighboring 


500  MY  LIFE   AXD  TIMES. 

particles  by  new  combinations  into  other  kinds  of  solid 
rock.  This  was  heaved  from  the  bed  of  the  ocean,  and 
again  became  part  of  the  dry  land.  Then  some  of  the 
particles  having-  again  become  dnst,  wonld  be  transformed 
into  plants,  then  into  animals,  and  then  wonld  return  to 
dnst  again,  while  others  wonld  become  the  sport  of  the 
winds,  whirled  high  in  the  air  over  the  mountain  top. 
And  so,  each  particle,  after  an  infinite  variety  of  expe- 
riences, is  brought  at  length,  by  the  power  of  God,  who 
has  been  watching  over  it  and  guiding  it,  as  well  as  every 
other  particle  of  matter  in  his  universe,  to  the  spot  where, 
with  its  fellows,  it  is  to  receive  the  high  honor  of  com- 
posing part  of  the  first  man.  Xow,  look  back  again  over 
these  numberless  histories,  and  at  the  mass  the  particles 
form,  and  ask  yourselves  if  yon  have  been  tracing  the 
history  of  'Adam  as  to  his  body'  ?  Is  the  mass  of  in- 
organic matter  lying  there  Adam's  body  ?  Are  those  par- 
ticles rocked  to  the  lullaby  of  the  waves  little  Adams  '?  Or, 
those  others  which  are  careering  over  mountain  and 
plain  ?  Or  are  the  animals  of  which  these  particles  once 
formed  a  portion  the  ancestors  of  xVdam  as  to  his  body  ? 
And  has  it  sprung  from  that  plant  ?  Or  do  not  such  sug- 
gestions rather  present  a  caricature  which  no  one  would 
venture  to  say  constituted  a  good  logical  inference  from 
the  hypothesis  we  are  considering?  Xo;  these  particles 
were  not  'Adam  as  to  his  body' ;  they  together  in  the  mass 
were  not  that  body ;  and  it  is  shockingly  absurd  to  speak 
of  it  as  such  until  God  had  fasliioncd  it  and  made  it 
man's  body  by  uniting  with  it  man's  soul. 

''Applying  the  illustration  now  presented,  I  think  you 
cannot  fail  to  see  that  Dr.  Girardeau's  representations  of 
my  hypothesis  are  not  good  logical  inferences,  but  on  the 
contrary  are  a  horrible  caricature." 

Dr.  Girardeau,  interrupting:  "I  declare  them  to  be 
positively,  absolutely  true,  and  no  misrepresentation." 

Dr.  Wood  row  closed  with  an  ap]3eal  to  the  court,  in  the 
name  of  the  AEaster  and  for  the  sake  of  the  soids  of  men, 
that  they  should  not  by  their  verdict  add  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  aid  in  blocking  up  the  way  of  those  who  would 
fain  press  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Dr.  Adams  marie  a  brief  closing  speecji.     Tie  beo-nn  by 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  591 

indignantly  repelling  the  intimations  which  had  been 
made  as  to  his  object  in  bringing  Dr.  Girardeau  as  a  wit- 
ness. He  went  on  to  say  that  his  object  was  to  elicit  the 
testimony  to  which  Ave  had  listened  ;  at  least,  that  was  the 
primary  object ;  though,  of  course,  he  was  glad  to  have 
the  benefit  of  his  friend's  counsel. 

After  the  prosecutor  had  closed,  the  roll  was  called,  and 
the  members  of  the  court  expressed  their  opinion  in  the 
cause.     The  vote  was  then  taken,  and  resulted  as  follows : 

As  to  the  first  part  of  the  indictment,  Guilty,  9 ;  not 
guilty,  14. 

As  to  the  second  part  of  the  indictment,  Guilty,  G  ;  not 
guilty,  17. 

Dr.  Adams,  the  prosecutor,  gave  notice  that  he  would 
complain  to  the  Synod  of  Georgia  of  the  decision  of  the 
presbytery  in  the  case,  and  also  as  to  its  refusal  to  allow 
him  to  vote,  and  other  points. 

Records  of  the  Syxod  of  Georgia  in  the  Complaint  Case  of 
Kev.  Wm.  Adams,  D.  D.,  versus  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta, 
Tried  Before  the  Synod,  at  Sparta,  Ga.,  November  10-13, 
1886. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Adams's  "CompJairit  or  Appeal,  or  Both." 

Augusta,  Ga.,  August  24,  1886. 
Tlie  Presbyterian  Churcli  in  the  United  States  versus  the  Rev. 
James  Woodrow,  D.  D. 

Grounds  of  comphiint  or  appeal,  or  both,  against  the  Augusta 
Presbytery  in  the  above  ease,  by  the  Rev.  William  Adams. 
"To  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  Ga.: 

"Dear  Brethren  :  Before  your  adjournment,  at  Bethany,  on 
Tuesday,  the  17th  inst.,  I  gave  you  notice  that  I  would  complain  to 
the  Synod  of  Georgia  against  your  decision  in  the  case  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  versus  the  Rev.  James  Wood- 
row.  D.  D.  I  now  hereby  formally  enter  my  complaint  and  appeal 
to  the  said  Synod  against  the  said  decision  on  the  following 
grounds : 

"First,  That  your  decision  in  acquitting  the  said  James  Wood- 
row  of  the  charges  preferred  against  him  by  myself  is  contrary  to 
the  evidence  which  had  been  submitted  at  the  trial,  and  also  con- 
trary to  the  law  in  the  case.  Second,  That  certain  ruling  elders. 
viz.,  H.  D.  Smith,  of  Bethany  church,  and  John  Trowbridge,  of 
Waynesboro  and  Bath  church,  were  allowed  to  vote  unconstitution- 


592  MY  LIFE   AND  TliNIES. 

ally  in  the  ease — the  former,  H.  D.  Smith,  bcinc  permitted  to  take 
his  seat  in  the  place  of  C.  N.  Jordan,  who  had  already  been  enrolled 
as  the  alternate  delegate,  and  who  had  voted  at  the  election  of  the 
Moderator,  and  who  had  given  no  notice  to  presbytery  that  he 
wished  to  be  relieved  or  desired  to  vacate  his  seat;  and  the  latter, 
John  Trowbridge,  being  allowed,  by  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  to 
vote  on  the  final  issue,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that,  pending  the 
trial,  he  had  absented  himself  from  sittings  of  presbytery  without 
permission  of  the  court,  and  notwithstanding  the  distinct  avowal  of 
the  prosecutor  that,  to  his  certain  knowledge,  the  said  John  Trow- 
bridge liad  been  absent  during  a  part  of  tlie  reading  of  the  minutes, 
which  minutes  consisted  of  the  testimony.  The  ruling  of  the  Mod- 
erator in  this  case  was  as  follows :  that,  as  he  had  heard  all  the 
testimony  read,  and  had  absented  himself  because  of  sickness,  he 
was  entitled  to  vote.  Third,  That  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  was 
also  unjust  in  refusing  to  allow  one  witness  to  express  his  own 
opinion,  and  insisting  that  another  witness  should  give  his  opinion. 
The  following  is  the  record  of  the  rulings  referred  to:  When  Dr. 
Girardeau  was  asked,  'You  said  that  you  believed  at  the  time  of 
the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  that  Dr.  Woodrow's 
views  were  not  heresy.  Do  you  believe  so  now'.'" — the  Moderator 
ruled  that  the  question  was  out  of  order ;  but  when  the  defendant 
asked  the  prosecutor,  'You  have  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  not  guilty 
of  heresy,  have  you  not?'  and  when  the  point  of  order  was  raised 
that  this  question  related  to  Dr.  Adams's  opinion,  and  should  not 
be  answered,  the  Moderator  ruled  that,  as  this  class  of  questions 
had  been  allowed  to  go  on  so  long,  this  question  would  also  be 
allowed.  Fourth,  That  the  prosecutor  was  deprived  of  his  lawful 
rights  in  the  case  by  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  'that  neither  the 
prosecutor  nor  the  accused  could  vote  on  the  final  issue.'  ( See  Rules 
of  Discipline,  Chap,  v.,  Par.  3,  as  compared  with  Chap,  vi..  Par.  10.) 
"I  am  truly  and  sincerely  yours,  Wm.  Adams." 

Copy  of  Dr.  Adams's  letter,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  fol- 
lowing minutes: 

"Augusta,  Ga.,  yovember  8,  188G. 

"liev.  James  titacy,  D.  D..  IStated  Clerk  of  the  tiiinod  of  Georgia: 

"Dear  Brother:  Before  the  adjournment  of  the  Augusta  Presby- 
tery at  Bethany  on  Tuesday,  August  the  17th,  I  gave  notice  that  I 
would  complain  to  the  Synod  of  Georgia  against  their  decision  in 
the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  versus  the 
Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.  I  now  formally  notify  you  of  that 
action  and  hand  you  herewith  a  copy  of  said  complaint  as  subse- 
quently i)ut  into  the  hands  of  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Augusta.     I  wisli  also  to  give  you  notice  that  T  withdraw  the  appeal 


CONTKOVEUSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  59^'] 

which  I  entered  witli  the  complaint,  and  confine  myself  to  the  com- 
plaint alone.  Should  this  notification  of  the  withdrawal  of  the 
appeal  be  deemed  insufficient,  I  respectfully  ask  the  Synod  to  per- 
mit me  to  take  this  course.  My  reasons  for  this  complaint  are,  first, 
my  profound  conviction  that  the  decision  of  the  Augusta  Presbytery 
was  unjust  and  hurtful  to  the  church  and  contrary  to  the  law  and 
testimony,  as  fully  specified  in  the  complaint  which  is  filed ;  second, 
that  grave  errors  were  committed  in  course  of  the  trial,  which 
«rrors  are  specified  in  the  complaint. 

"Fraternally  yours,  W.  Adams." 

The  complaint  of  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  against  the  Presbytery  of  Au- 
gusta, with  a  letter  to  the  Synod  accompanying  it,  was  referred  to 
the  Judicial  Committee,  together  with  all  the  papers  in  the  case. 

Judicial  Committee  of  the  Synod — J.  L.  Rogers,  E.  H.  Barnett, 
G.  H.  Cartledge,  J.  A.  Billups,  E.  P.  Eberhart. 

Rev.  J.  L.  Rogers,  chairman  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  presented 
their  leport  on  the  complaint  of  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  against  the  Presby- 
tery of  Augusta.  Permission  was  given  to  amend  the  complaint 
by  striking  out  the  words  "or  appeal,  or  both,"  and  its  consideration 
made  the  first  order  for  to-morrow  morning. 

The  report  of  the  Judicial  Committee  on  the  complaint  against 
the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  as  the  order  of  the  day,  was  approved, 
and  is  as  follows : 

"Your  Judicial  Committee  would  report,  that  in  the  complaint  of 
Rev.  William  Adams,  D.  D.,  against  the  Augusta  Presbytery,  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  versus  James 
Woodrow,  D.  D.,  they  find  the  papers  in  order,  except  that  it  pro- 
poses to  "complain  and  appeal,  or  hothy  The  committee  recom- 
mend that  Dr.  Adams  be  allowed  to  amend  his  paper  and  make  it 
a  complaint  only;  and  recommend  that  Synod  hear  the  case  in  the 
order  prescribed  in  our  Book  of  Church  Order,  as  follows :  First, 
that  the  record  in  the  cause  be  read.  Second,  to  hear  the  complain- 
ant. Tliird,  to  hear  the  respondent.  Fourth,  to  hear  the  com- 
plainant again.  Fifth,  and  then  it  shall  consider  and  decide  the 
case.  J.  L.  Rogers,  Chairman.'' 

It  was  resolved  to  enter  at  once  upon  the  case,  and  the  Moderator 
gave  the  required  charge  to  the  court.  The  record  of  the  case  was 
read,  and  after  a  recess  of  five  minutes,  the  complainant  was  heard 
until  the  hour  for  recess,  which  was  taken  until  half-past  two 
•o'clock  this  afternoon. 

The  unfinished  business  was  resumed,  and  the  complainant  heard 


504  MY   LIFE   AND   miKS. 

to  tlie  close  of  his  first  argument.  The  appointment  made  on  yester- 
(hiy  for  a  foreign  missionary  meeting  to-night  was  rescinded,  in 
order  to  continue  the  case  under  consideration.  Recess  was  taken 
for  five  minutes;  after  which  the  respondent — the  Presbytery  of 
Augusta — was  heard  through  its  appointed  counsel,  Rev.  Dr.  Wood- 
row,  until  recess  was  taken  until  seven  o'clock  to-night. 

Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow,  as  counsel  for  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  was 
tlieii  lieard  in  the  remainder  of  his  argument;  after  which  the  com- 
plainant was  heard  in  response.  After  this  the  roll  was  called,  that 
members  might  express  their  opinion  in  the  cause,  the  time  to  each 
being  limited  to  three  minutes.  The  complaint  was  then  taken  up 
seriatim.  On  the  first  count  in  the  complaint  the  ayes  and  noes 
were  called  for  and  the  vote  stood:  to  sustain,  49;  not  sustain,  L5; 
sustain  in  part,  2;    as  follows: 

To  SvsTAis.— Ministers — G.  H.  Cartledge,  C.  W.  Lane,  H.  F.  Hoyt, 
J.  L.  Cartledge,  James  Stacy,  H.  Quigg,  D.  Fraser,  J.  L.  Rogers,  G. 
B.  Strickler,  E.  H.  Barnett,  J.  H.  Alexander,  J.  E.  DuBose,  X.  KefT 
Smith,  A.  S.  Doak,  Wm.  McKay,  H.  C.  Brown,  I.  W.  Waddell.  G.  T. 
Chandler,  N.  H.  Smith,  M.  McN.  McKay,  J.  L.  King,  L.  A.  Simpson. 
Elders — L  H.  Cartledge,  A.  M.  Scudder,  J.  M.  Burns,  E.  P.  Eber- 
hart,  W.  R.  Little,  G.  C.  Daniel,  E.  Huie,  M.  A.  Candler,  C.  F.  Fair- 
banks, L.  F.  Livingston,  J.  L.  H.  Waldrop,  Geo.  Lyon,  J.  T.  Dolvin, 
H.  D.  Beman,  F.  White,  J.  A.  Billups,  W.  H.  Sherman,  R.  W.  Gam- 
ble, W.  C.  Sibley,  E.  W.  Allfriend,  A.  W.  Blake,  D.  W.  Orr,  J.  L. 
Lemons,  W.  M.  Saye,  T.  W.  Long,  J.  A.  Barry,  R.  W.  Love. 

XOT  TO  Sustain. — Ministers — J.  R.  Baird,  J.  L.  Stevens,  H.  Xew- 
ton,  F.  T.  Simpson,  J.  B.  Morton,  J.  D.  A.  Brown,  J.  E.  Jones,  A.  W. 
Clisby,  B.  D.  D.  Greer,  W.  A.  Milner,  J.  W.  Baker,  W.  A.  Carter. 
Elders— A.  R.  Steele,  P.  II.  Wright,  L.  N.  Turk. 

To  Sustain  in  Part. — Rev.  Robert  Adams,  Rev.  T.  ]\I.  Lowry. 

On  the  point  of  change  of  repiesentative  from  Jordan  to  Smith, 
sustained  viva  voce. 

On  that  of  permitting  Elder  Trowbridge  to  vote,  not  sustained,. 
viva  voce. 

Admission  of  evidence,  sustained,  on  division,  by  29  to  27. 

On  that  of  not  permitting  tlie  prosecutor  to  vote,  not  sustained, 
viva  voce. 

A  committee,  consisting  of  Brethren  Doak,  Rogers,  G.  H.  Cart- 
ledge, J.  D.  A.  Brown,  W.  A.  ]\Iilner,  Billups  and  Candler,  was  ap- 
pointed to  bring  in  a  judgment  of  the  Synod;  and  Synod  adjourned 
till  to-morrow  morning  at  nine  o'clock.    Closed  with  prayer. 

Tiie  committee  to  prepare  a  minute  expressing  the  judgment  of 
Synod  in  the  case  of  the  complaint  against  the  Presbytery  of  Au- 
gusta, reported  the  following,  which  was  adopted: 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  595 

"Your  committee,  appointed  by  Synod  to  bring  in  a  minute  ex- 
pressive of  the  action  of  Synod  upon  the  comphiint  of  William 
Adams,  D.  D.,  against  the  decision  of  Augusta  Presbytery  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  against  James 
Woodrow,  D.  D.,  and  to  report  the  judgment  of  Synod  thereon,  re- 
port that  the  complaint  be  sustained,  for  the  reason  that  the  finding 
and  judgment  of  the  presbytery  are  contrary  to  the  evidence  and  the 
law,  in  that  the  evidence  before  the  presbytery  showed  that  the  be- 
lief of  the  said  defendant,  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  body  of  Adam,  was  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted 
in  the  standards  of  the  church :  and  it  is  therefore  ordered  that 
the  said  verdict  and  judgment  of  the  presbytery  is  hereby  annulled. 

"A.  S.  DOAK,  Ghairttma." 

Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow  gave  notice  that  he  would  complain  to  the 
General  Assembly  of  Synod's  action  in  his  case;  and  Rev.  Drs.  G. 
B.  Strickler  and  W.  Adams  and  Elder  J.  A.  Billups  were  appointed 
to  represent  Synod  before  the  Assembly  as  respondent  to  this  com- 
plaint. 

Since  the  adjournment  of  Synod,  the  Stated  Clerk  received  the 
following  communication  from  Dr.  Woodrow: 

"University  of  South  Carolina, 
"Columbia,  S.  C,  November  20,  1886. 
"To    the    Rev.    Dr.    James    Stacy,    Stated    Clerk   of    the    Synod    of 
(leorgia  : 

"Rev.  and  Dear  Sir:  On  tlie  13th  inst.  the  Synod  of  Georgia 
adopted  the  following:  'Your  committee,  appointed  by  the  Synod  to 
bring  in  a  minute  expressive  of  the  action  of  the  Synod  on  the  com- 
plaint of  Wm.  Adams,  D.  D.,  against  the  decision  of  the  Augusta 
Presbytery,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  against  James 
Woodrow,  D.  D.,  and  report  the  judgment  of  the  Synod  thereon,  re- 
port that  the  complaint  be  sustained,  for  the  reason  that  the  finding 
and  judgment  of  the  presbytery  are  contrary  to  the  evidence  and 
the  law,  in  that  the  evidence  before  the  presbytery  showed  that  the 
belief  of  said  defendant,  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  body  of  Adam,  was  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  as  interpreted 
by  standards  of  the  church.  It  is  therefore  ordered,  that  the  judg- 
ment of  the  presbytery  be  hereby  annulled.' 

"Thereupon  I  gave  notice  to  the  Synod  that  I  would  complain  to 
the  next  General  Assembly,  which  will  hold  its  session  at  St.  Louis, 
Mo.,  in  May,  1887,  against  tliis  decision. 

"My  reason  for  so  complaining  is  that  the  decision  of  the  Synod 
is  contrary  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

"Yours  respectfully,  James  Woodrow." 


59C  MY  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

1  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  Records 
of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  in  the  coinphxint  case  of  Rev.  \Vm.  Adams. 
D.  D.,  versus  tlie  Presbytery  of  Augusta. 

James  Stacy,  Stated  Clerk. 

Dr.  Woodrow  being  providentially  hindered  by  severe 
illness  from  prosecuting  his  complaint  before  the  As- 
sembly at  St.  Louis,  in  1887,  that  Assembly  ordered  his 
letter  put  on  record. 

At  the  same  Assembly  overtures  came  up  from  the 
Presbyteries  of  South  Carolina  and  Harmony,  respecting 
evolution  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  the  following  is  the  action  taken  thereon.  The  Com- 
mittee of  Bills  and  Overtures  reported  on  overtures  Kos. 
17  and  18.     A  substitute  was  offered  as  follows: 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  Committee  on  Bills  and  Over- 
tures, would  respectfully  present  the  following  minority  report  for 
the  adoption  of  the  General  Assembly: 

To  overtures  from  the  Presbyteries  of  Harmony  and  South  Caro- 
lina, respecting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Assembly  over  all 
the  affairs,  institutions,  and  proceedings  of  the  lower  courts,  the 
General  Assembly  met  at  St.  Louis,  1887,  gives  answer: 

1.  That  as  our  Constitution  limits  expressly  the  jurisdiction  of 
each  and  all  our  church  courts  {Form  of  Government,  Chap.  V., 
Sec.  2,  Par.  4),  the  General  Assembly  cannot  lawfully  exercise  super- 
visory jurisdiction  over  the  affairs,  institutions,  or  proceedings  of 
the  lower  courts,  nor  over  their  ofTice-bearers,  except  as  these  mat- 
ters shall  come  before  the  highest  court  in  some  one  of  the  four  con- 
stitutional modes  prescribed  in  our  Rules  of  Discipline,  viz.,  review, 
reference,  appeal  or  complaint.  (See  Rules  of  Discipline,  Chap. 
XIII.,  Sec.  1.)  Tlierefore  the  action  of  the  last  Assembly  is  declared 
unconstitutional,  which  claimed  and  exercised  supervisory  jurisdic- 
tion to  the  extent  that  it  assumed  to  directly  charge  an  office-bearer 
under  the  control  of  the  four  Synods  with  holding  views  repugnant 
to  the  word  of  God  and  our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  thereupon 
earnestly  reconnnended  that  he  be  dismissed  from  office. 

2.  Respecting  the  further  question  of  South  Carolina  Presbytery, 
touching  the  mode  of  creation  as  defined  by  the  last  Assembly,  we 
leconimend  that  this  Assembly  answer:  That  the  scriptures  clearly 
reveal  that,  in  the  highest  sense,  God  is  Creator  of  all  things,  and 
consequently  of  Adam's  body  and  soul;  and  both  the  scriptures  and 
our  Confession  of  Faith  teach  that  his  body  was  formed  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground,  whether  mediatelv  or  imniediatelv:    but  "the  inscru- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  597 

table  mode"'  God  hath  not  revealed,  and  this  Assembly  holds  that  it 
it  is  not  given  to  the  ehurcli  to  pronounce  definitely  as  to  the  mode 
by  which,  and  the  time  in  which,  the  Creator  chose  to  work. 

Respectfully  submitted,  S.  L.  Morris, 

J.  W.  Greene. 

The  substitute  was  indefinitely  postponed,  and  the  re- 
port was  adopted,  and  is  as  follows : 

Overtures  No.  17  and  18.  From  the  Presbyteries  of  Harmony  and 
South  Carolina,  touching  the  acts  of  the  last  Assembly  on  evolution, 
and  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly  over  theological  seminaries 
and  their  instructors. 

A^iswer — Touching  the  subject  matter  referred  to  in  these  over- 
tures, this  Assembly  declines  to  formulate  any  detailed  explanation 
of  the  acts  of  the  last  Assembly,  as  any  such  statement,  however  ex- 
pressed, could  only  be  regarded  as  a  new  deliverance  on  the  same 
subjects,  which  this  Assembly  does  not  feel  called  upon  to  make. 

Dr.  Woodrow  appeared  before  the  Assembly  at  Balti- 
more in  1888,  and  his  complaint  was  issued.  Dr.  William 
Adams  appeared  as  respondent  for  the  Synod  of  Georgia. 
Four  hours'  time  was  allowed  to  each.  Judge  Heiskell,  a 
member  of  the  Assembly,  acted  as  Dr.  Woodrow's  counsel, 
and  Dr.  Strickler  assisted  Dr.  Adams.  The  vote  was 
taken :  To  sustain,  34 ;  not  to  sustain,  109  ;  to  sustain  in 
part,  2 ;  excused  from  voting,  4 ;  absent  or  not  answer- 
ing, 5. 

The  committee  to  whom  it  was  referred  to  bring  in  a 
minute,  expressing  the  Assembly's  judgment  in  this  case, 
reported  a  preamble,  stating  the  facts  of  the  case,  with 
this  conclusion  following: 

Now,  therefore,  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  General  Assembly,  that 
Adam's  body  was  directly  fashioned  by  Almighty  God,  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  without  any  natural  animal  parentage  of  any  kind. 
The  wisdom  of  God  prompted  him  to  reveal  the  fact,  while  the  in- 
scrutable mode  of  his  action  therein  he  has  not  revealed. 

Therefore,  the  church  does  not  propose  to  touch,  handle  or  con- 
clude any  question  of  science  which  belongs  to  God's  kingdom  of 
nature.  She  must,  by  her  divine  constitution,  see  that  these  ques- 
tions are  not  tlirust  upon  her  to  break  the  silence  of  scripture,  and 
supplement  it  by  any  scientific  hypothesis  concerning  the  mode  of 
God's  being  or  acts  in  creating,  which  are  inscrutable  to  us.  It  is 
therefore  ordered  that  this  complaint  in  this  case  be  not  sustained. 


598  MV  LIFE   AND  TIMES. 

and  tlie  judgment  of   the   Synod  of  (Jeorgia   be,   and   the   same  is 
hereby,  in  all  things  affirmed. 

Rev.  T.  C.  Whaling,  for  himself  and  others,  offered  the 
following  protest,  which  was  admitted  to  record  without 
answer : 

We,  whose  names  are  undersigned,  desire  to  enter  our  solemn  pro- 
test against  the  decision  of  this  (reneral  Assembly  refusing  to  sus- 
tain the  complaint  of  the  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  against  the 
Synod  of  Georgia,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  The  second  specification  in  the  indictment  against  the  Rev. 
James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  is  expressly  excluded  by  the  constitution  of 
the  church,  inasmuch  as  nothing  ought  to  be  considered  by  any  court 
as  an  otFence,  or  admitted  as  a  matter  of  accusation,  which  cannot 
be  proved  to  be  such  from  scripture  as  interpreted  in  these  stan- 
dards. 

2.  In  view  of  your  protestants,  the  holy  Bible  does  not  reveal  the 
form  of  the  matter  out  of  which,  the  time  in  which,  or  the  mode  by 
which,  God  created  the  body  of  Adam,  and  therefore  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution  as  believed  by  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  in  conflict  with  the  teaching  of  the  sacred  scriptures. 

3.  The  Westminster  standards  simply  reproduce  without  inter- 
pretation the  statements  of  the  scriptures  in  reference  to  the 
creation  of  Adam's  body;  and,  as  the  views  of  the  complainant  are 
not  in  conflict  with  the  statements  of  the  scriptures,  so  neither  can 
they  be  with  the  teachings  of  the  standards. 

4.  The  action  of  the  Assembly  in  refusing  to  sustain  this  com- 
plaint is  equivalent  to  pronouncing  as  certainly  false  the  theory  of 
evolution  as  applied  by  Dr.  Woodrow  to  Adam's  body,  which  is  a 
purely  scientific  question,  entirely  foreign  to  the  legitimate  sphere 
of  ecclesiastical  action.  Your  protestants,  therefore,  are  unwilling 
that  this  General  Assembly  should  express  any  opinion  whatever 
respecting  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  or  any  other  scientific  ques- 
tion. 

This  General  x\ssembl_v  at  Baltimore  is  the  last  one  at 
which  Dr.  Woodrow  appears,  either  as  appellant  or  com- 
plainant, or  as  in  any  way  directly  concerned  personally. 
Its  decision  in  his  case  seems  to  have  gratified  both  those 
opposed  to  and  those  defending  him.  As  to  the  former, 
tliis  appears  from  the  action  taken  at  Aiken  by  the 
Charleston  Presbytery  at  its  very  next  meeting,  officially 
informing  its  ministers,  elders  and  deacons  of  the  de- 
cision made  by  the  Assembly,  and  forbidding  any  public 


CONTKOVKKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  5U9 

contending  against  it.  As  to  the  latter,  the  same  appears 
in  the  protest  to  the  Assembly's  decision  by  eighteen  of 
its  members,  the  chief  reason  of  protest  being  that  the 
Assembly's  decision  against  Dr.  Woodrow  related  only  to 
a  scientific  theory,  respecting  which  the  Assembly,  as 
such,  had  no  right  to  give  any  decision,  as  they  had  not 
been  able  to  prove  it  contrary  to  the  scriptures. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  decision  of  Augusta  Pres- 
bytery, which  the  Synod  of  Georgia  annulled,  had  been 
a  verdict  declaring  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  standing  as  a 
member  of  that  presbytery  was  unira])eaehable,  and  inas- 
much as  the  Baltimore  General  Assembly  refused,  by  a 
large  majority,  to  sustain  Dr.  Woodrow's  complaint 
against  that  Synod's  annulment,  there  was  room  for  the 
question,  how  far  this  highest  court  had  impeached  Dr. 
Woodrow's  standing  as  a  minister  ?  To  this  very  question 
Dr.  Woodrow  himself  called  the  attention  of  Augusta 
Presbytery.  It  promptly  assembled  in  October,  and 
unanimously  declared  him  rectus  in  curia.  Georgia 
Synod  unanimously  approved  of  presbytery's  records  on 
this  subject.  Moreover,  the  Augusta  Presbytery  elected 
Dr.  Woodrow  its  Moderator,  and  also  its  representative 
commissioner  at  the  ensuing  Assembly  of  1889,  at  Chat- 
tanooga. His  seat  in  that  Assembly  was  never  challenged, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  he  was  recognized  as  a  lawful  nom- 
inee for  the  moderatorship,  also  was  appointed  and  acted 
as  chairman  of  one  of  its  leading  standing  committees — 
the  Committee  of  Publication.  Moreover,  the  Chatta- 
nooga Assembly  approved  the  records  of  the  Georgia 
S}Tiod,  which  had  endorsed  Augusta  Presbytery's  judg- 
ment of  Dr.  Woodrow's  soundness  in  faith  and  good 
standing. 

Now,  respecting  the  verdict  of  the  Baltimore  Assembly, 
it  appears  from  Dr.  Flinn's  printed  speech  that,  while  Dr. 
Woodrow's  complaint  was  being  heard,  it  was  declared  in 
eft'ect  by  the  Moderator,  by  the  respondents  of  Georgia 
Synod,  and  by  Dr.  Woodrow,  unchallenged,  that  he  (Dr. 
Woodrow)  was  not  on  trial,  that  his  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ing would  not  be  affected  by  the  Assembly's  action.  This 
declaration  was  officially  emphasized  by  the  Assembly's 
not  giving  instructions  for  a  new  trial,  or  for  arraigning 


600  MY  I.IFE   AND   TIMES. 

Augusta  Presbytery,  and  by  declining  to  enjoin  silence 
or  the  cessation  of  discussion  on  the  subject  of  evolution. 
All  this,  of  course,  logically  and  legally  meant,  "Dr. 
Woodrow's  views  may  be  held  consistently  with  good 
standing  in  the  church"  ;  all  which  would  seem  to  signify 
a  declaration  by  the  supreme  court  that  Dr.  Woodrow's 
views  were  consistent  with  sound  doctrine  and  good  stand- 
ing; for  if  the  Assembly  thought  Dr.  Woodrow  held 
''errors  in  doctrine  injuriously  affecting  the  church,"  ren- 
dering its  "advice  and  instruction  in  conformity  with  the 
constitution"  necessary  in  the  premises,  it  would  have  ex- 
ercised its  power  thus  to  "bear  testimony,  and  suppress 
schismatical  contentions  and  disputations."  (Form  of 
Goveninient,  Par.  90.)  ]Srot  doing  these  things  was  a 
declaration :  "Dr.  Woodrow  holds  no  such  errors,  main- 
tains no  such  controversy  ;  hence  no  advice  is  necessary"  ; 
for  when  courts  are  required  to  exercise  certain  acts  of 
power  on  given  contingencies,  the  not  exercising  of  them 
is  a  declaration  that  the  contingencies  do  not  exist. 

Thus  it  was  maintained  by  the  friends  of  Dr.  Woodrow 
that  the  Augusta  Presbytery,  the  Georgia  Synod,  the  Bal- 
timore Assembly,  and  the  Chattanooga  Assembly,  and  so 
the  whole  church,  including  even  the  Charleston  Presby- 
tery, had  declared  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  doctrinally  and 
ecclesiastically  sound,  notwithstanding  his  evolution 
views. 

I  must  introduce  here  what  could  not  possibly  come  in 
before  the  history  of  the  Assembly  at  Baltimore,  in  the 
spring  of  1888. 

The  Synod  of  South  Carolina. 

It  met  at  Cheraw  on  October  20,  1886.  At  that  meet- 
ing the  board  announced  to  the  Synod  the  failure  of  all 
efforts  hitherto  to  remove  Dr.  Woodrow  in  the  following' 
terms:  "At  the  first  meeting  of  the  board,  held  after  the 
last  meetings  of  the  respective  synods,  the  board  recog- 
nized it  as  the  result  of  their  action,  that  Professor  James 
Woodrow  had  not  been  legally  removed  from  the  Perkins 
chair,  and  he  has,  until  this  meeting  of  the  board,  held 
September  15,  1886,  acted  as  such  and  discharged  the 
duties  of  the  chair." 


COI^TEOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  601 

Rev.  Dr.  Girardeau  presented  a  resolution,  which,  upon 
his  own  motion,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Theological  Seminary. 

Eev.  D.  S.  McAllister,  of  the  Committee  on  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  presented  a  report,  in  part,  from  a  ma- 
jority of  the  committee,  as  follows : 

Your  Committee  on  the  Theological  Seminary  begs  to  submit  the 
following  partial  report: 

We  recommend  that  the  Synod  adopt  the  paper  presented  by  Dr. 
Girardeau,  "That  this  Synod,  being  deeply  sensible  of  its  responsi- 
bility for  the  administration  of  the  high  and  solemn  trust  reposed 
in  its  hands  in  connection  with  the  Theological  Seminary,  and 
deeming  it  important  to  the  future  welfare  and  efficiency  of  that  in- 
stitution that  Dr.  Woodrow  should  withdraw  from  relation  to  it, 
hereby  requests  him  to  signify  to  the  Synod,  at  once,  his  willing- 
ness to  tender  to  the  Board  of  Directors,  at  an  early  day,  his  resig- 
nation of  the  Perkins  chair;"  and  that  this  action  be  telegraphed, 
by  special  committee,  at  once,  to  Dr.  Woodrow,  requesting  an  im- 
mediate answer.  D.  S.  McAllister, 

A.  A.  James, 
J.  A.  Enslow. 

Rev.  J.  S.  White,  in  behalf  of  a  minority  of  the  com- 
mittee, proposed  the  following  amendment  to  the  above 
report  of  the  majority : 

It  is  understood  that  this  resolution  is  based  simply  upon  the 
present  deplorable  condition  of  the  Seminary,  without  naming  any 
parties  responsible  for  it;  and,  further,  upon  what  seems  to  be 
necessary  for  the  future  welfare  of  that  institution;  and  it  has  no 
connection,  so  far  as  this  request  is  concerned,  with  any  charges 
or  any  action  heretofore  taken  by  our  church  courts  in  reference  to 
the  Perkins  Professor.  J.  S.  White, 

J.  D.  Harrison. 

The  amendment  being  put,  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  twenty- 
seven  to  ninety. 

The  committee  appointed  to  telegraph  Dr.  Woodrow, 
reported  the  following  telegram  just  delivered,  which  was 
received  as  information : 

I  have  just  received  your  telegram.  Under  existing  circumstances 
I  respectfully  decline  complying  with  the  Synod's  request. 

James  Woodrow. 


602  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Ivcv.  Dr.  Girardeau  moved  the  following  resolution^ 
which  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  seventy-eight  to  forty-two : 

Whereas,  tliis  Synod  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  this  Synod,  being  deeply  sensible  of  its  responsi- 
bility for  the  administration  of  the  high  and  solemn  trust  reposed 
in  its  hands  in  connection  with  the  Theological  Seminary,  and 
deeming  it  important  to  the  future  welfare  and  efficiency  of  that  in- 
stitution that  Dr.  Woodrow  should  withdraw  from  relation  to  it, 
hereby  requests  him  to  signify  to  the  Synod  at  once  his  willingness 
to  tender  to  the  Board  of  Directors,  at  an  early  day,  his  resignation 
of  the  Perkins  chair,  and  that  this  action  be  telegraphed  by  special 
committee,  at  once,  to  Dr.  Woodrow,  requesting  immediate  answer." 

And  whereas,  Dr.  Woodrow  has  declined  to  comply  with  this  re- 
quest of  the  Synod,  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  the  other  Synods 
concurring,  does  hereby  instruct  the  Board  of  Directors  to  meet  at 
as  early  a  day  as  practicable  after  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of 
South  Georgia  and  Florida,  and  renew  the  request  to  Dr.  Woodrow 
for  his  resignation;  and,  if  he  shall  decline  to  accede  to  that  re- 
quest, the  board  are  hereby  ordered  to  declare  the  Perkins  profes- 
sorship vacant,  and  make  such  provision  for  the  department  as  may 
seem  best. 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  two  from  each  of  the  Synods  con- 
trolling the  Seminary,  the  other  Synods  concurring,  be  appointed  to 
revise  the  constitution  of  the  Seminary,  and  report  at  the  meetings 
of  the  Synods  in  1887;  the  joint  committee  to  meet  at  Atlanta,  Ga., 
at  a  time  agreed  upon  by  its  members,  and  to  elect  its  own  chair- 
man; the  duty  of  convening  the  committee  to  be  assigned  to  the 
person  first  named  on  the  Georgia  committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Girardeau  and  Rev.  George  Sumniey  were 
appointed  the  committee  on  behalf  of  this  Synod  to  revise 
the  constitution  of  the  Seminary. 

The  Synod  of  South  Carolina,.  1887. 

It  met  at  Darlington  on  2Tth  of  November.  The  ma- 
jority of  the  Standing  Committee  on  the  Theological 
Seminary  recommended  the  adoption  by  the  Synod  of  this 
resolution,  to-wit: 

Inasmuch  as  the  board's  action  in  removing  the  Rev.  James  Wood- 
row,  D.  D.,  from  the  Perkins  chair,  was  in  accordance  with  the 
order  of  the  four  controlling  Synods,  this  Synod  approves  of  and 
confirms  that  action. 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  603 

The  minority  of  said  committee  report  for  Synod's 
adoption  this  resolution,  to-wit : 

That  the  board  is  hereby  instructed,  the  other  controlling  Synods 
•concurring,  to  proceed  at  once  to  determine  the  question  as  to  Dr. 
Woodrow's  alleged  incompetence  or  unfaithfulness  by  a  full  trial,  as 
is  provided  in  the  constitution  of  the  Seminary  (Sec.  2,  Art.  11). 

The  minority  report  was  rejected  by  eighty-five  to 
sixty,  and  then  the  majority  report  adoj^ted  without 
coimt. 

The  select  committee  to  revise  the  constitution  reported 
to  this  Synod,  but  the  consideration  of  the  matter  was 
postponed  until  next  meeting  of  Synod. 

Synod  of  South  Carolina^  1888. 

It  followed  after  the  Assembly  at  Baltimore,  and  met 
at  Greenwood,  October  12tli. 

Rev.  T.  0.  Whaling,  of  the  Committee  on  the  Records 
of  Charleston  Presbytery,  presented  this  report : 

Your  Committee  on  the  Records  of  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston 
have  examined  said  records,  and  recommend  their  approval,  with  the 
following  exceptions : 

1.  On  page  314  the  records  show  that  the  presbytery  adopted  the 
following  paper : 

"The  Committee  on  Minutes  of  General  Assembly  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  presbytery  to  the  judicial  case  decided  by  the  Assembly 
(see  page  408),  and  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

"Presbytery  hereby  informs  its  ministers,  ruling  elders  and  dea- 
cons, that  the  General  Assembly  has  judicially  affirmed  the  de- 
cision of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  declaring  that  the  'belief  of  .  .  . 
James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  body  of  Adam  was 
covtrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards  of  the 
church;''  and,  therefore,  that  this  presbytery  regards  the  holding  of 
said  form  of  evolution  as  'contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  inter- 
preted in  the  standards  of  the  church,'  and  forbids  the  public  con- 
tending against  the  decision  of  the  Assembly." 

Your  conunittee  recommend  for  the  adoption  of  Synod  the  follow- 
ing resolutions : 

J.  This  Synod  condemns  this  action  as  unconstitutional,  irregular 
;and  unwise  for  the  following  reasons : 

First.     This  action  is  a  trespass  upon  the  sacred  and  inalienable 


C04  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

right  of  private  judgment,  wliioh  belongs  to  every  court  and  all  the 
officers  and  members  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

Secondly.  This  action  imposes  a  restraint  upon  the  right  of  free- 
dom in  the  expression  of  opinion,  which  is  unwarranted  by  the  law. 

Thirdly.  This  action  assumes  the  infallibility  of  the  General  As- 
sembly in  the  deliverance  of  judicial  decisions,  which  is  a  doctrine 
foreign  to  the  Constitution  and  spirit  of  Presbyterianism. 

II.  This  Synod  directs  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston  to  convene  as 
soon  as  practicable  and  review  and  correct  these  proceedings,  which 
the  Synod  has  now  condemned. 

T.  C.  Whaling, 
R.  M.  Cooper. 

Rev.  Dr.  Thompson  presented  a  protest  against  the 
action  of  Synod  just  taken,  which,  on  motion,  was  ad- 
mitted to  record,  and  the  following  committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  bring  in  an  answer :  Rev.  N.  M.  Woods,  Rev. 
T.  C.  Whaling  and  Judge  T.  B.  Fraser. 

It  had  been  agreed  to  take  the  vote  seriatim  and  ta 
record  ayes  and  noes.  The  vote  on  the  first  exception  was 
ninety-six  ayes  to  fifty-eight  noes.  The  vote  for  the  rea- 
sons stood  one  hundred  and  four  to  forty-three.  The  vote 
on  the  second  exception  was  eighty-five  ayes  to  — .  The 
paper  as  adopted  Avas  as  above  given. 

Rev.  N.  M.  Woods  presented,  in  behalf  of  the  commit- 
tee, an  answer  to  the  protest  of  Rev.  Dr.  Thompson  and 
others  to  the  action  of  Synod  on  the  records  of  Charleston 
Presbytery. 

The  question  being  raised  whether  the  answer  to  a  pro- 
test is  open  to  discussion  by  the  body,  the  Moderator 
ruled  that  the  answer  is  a  matter  before  the  court  for  its 
adoption  as  its  answer,  and  that  it  is  therefore  open  tO' 
discussion  by  all  the  members  of  the  court,  who  are  also 
entitled  to  vote  on  its  adoption.  On  appeal  from  this. 
decision  it  was  sustained  by  the  house. 

The  answer  was  adopted,  and  the  protest  and  answer 

are  as  follows : 

Protest. 

The  undersigned  respectfully  ask  to  be  permitted  to  enter  our  pro- 
test against  the  action  of  the  Synod  upon  the  records  of  the  Charles- 
ton Presbytery,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  The  Synod's  decision  was  reached  upon  the  resolution  passed 
by  the  presbytery,  dissociated  from  its  subsequent  proceedings,  ex- 


CONTROVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE.  605 

planatory  and  defining  tlie  scope  of  that  resolution — it  is  therefore 
a  judgment  upon  a  partial  record,  and  is  unjust. 

2.  It  denies  the  right  of  a  church  court  to  enjoin  obedience  to  the 
deliverances  of  superior  courts  upon  its  members  in  so  far  as  public 
contention  is  concerned  within  constitutional  limits.  It  thus  an- 
nounces a  principle  revolutionary  in  its  character,  and  subversive  of 
ecclesiastical  authority. 

3.  In  ignoring  the  expository  portion  of  the  record,  it  virtually 
charges  the  presbytery  with  insincerity  in  its  action,  to  put  it  in  its 
mildest  form. 

W.  T.  Thompson,  F.  Y.  Legare,  Jr., 

George  Summey,  F.  Y.  Legare, 

D.  E.  Frierson,  J.  T.  B.  Craig, 

R.  H.  Reid,  E.  p.  Moore, 

P.  A.  Emanuel,  C.  W.  Humphreys, 

T.  P.  Burgess,  W.  J.  Cunningham, 

Jno.  M.  Rose,  Jr.,  W.  F.  Pearson, 

W.  G.  Vardell,  J.  C.  Caldwell, 

J.  H.  McMurray,  W.  B.  Thompson, 

J.  B.  Mack,  H.  H.  Wyman, 
J.  L.  Girardeau. 

Answer. 
Your  committee,  appointed  to  bring  in  an  answer  to  the  protest 
recorded   against  Synod's  action  in  the  matter  of  condemning  the 
records  of  Charleston  Presbytery,  beg  leave  to  offer  the  following  for 
entry  on  the  minutes  of  Synod: 

I.  In  reply  to  the  first  statement  of  the  protestants,  Synod  an- 
swers that  its  judgment  was  reached  only  after  liaving  given  full 
and  careful  consideration  to  all  the  various  matters  relating  to  said 
action  of  Charleston  Presbytery.  The  interdict  itself,  the  protest 
made  against  tliat  interdict,  the  answer  of  presbytery  to  that  pro- 
test, and  the  verbal  explanations  made  by  some  of  the  authors  or 
advocates  of  said  interdict  and  answer  on  the  floor  of  Synod,  in  re- 
gard to  the  real  meaning  and  intent  of  the  same,  were  all  duly  taken 
into  account  by  the  Synod. 

II.  The  language  of  the  interdict  which,  as  presbytery's  records 
show  (page  314),  was  "fully  discussed,"  and  a  yea  and  nay  vote 
taken  and  recorded  thereon;  and  despite  all  this  discussion  of  op- 
posing members,  that  language  was  left  unaltered  and  unqualified. 
That  interdict,  in  the  plainest  possible  terms,  lays  a  prohibition 
upon  any  and  every  form  of  public  criticism  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly's deliverance  at  Baltimore,  in  the  matter  of  the  complaint  of 
Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  against  the  Synod  of  Georgia.  That 
interdict  contains  no  hint  that  its  object  was  to  prevent  only  vio- 


C)OC  :my  ltfe  am)  ti.mks. 

lent,  factious  and  abusive  criticisms  of  said  deliverance.  Nor  is; 
tliG  sweeping  severity  of  that  interdict  relieved  by  the  very  ambigu- 
ous and  indefinite  allusion  to  "a  constitutional  manner"  of  criticis- 
ing the  said  deliverance  contained  in  said  answer,  especially  when 
the  verbal  explanations,  offered  by  some  of  the  authors  and  advocates 
of  said  interdict  before  this  Synod,  plainly  revealed  the  fact  that 
their  ideas  of  wliat  is,  and  is  not,  a  constitutional  mode  of  public 
contending  would  prohibit  even  respectful  criticisms  of  said  deliv- 
ance  made  in  the  newspapers.  The  authors  and  defenders  of  said 
interdict  did  not  see  fit  to  limit  or  qualify  their  words  so  as  plainly 
to  confine  the  prohibition  to  unconstitutional,  factious  and  abiisive 
contending,  and  Synod  felt  obliged  to  take  the  language  of  the  inter- 
dict in  its  plain  meaning  and  intent. 

III.  The  protestants  utterly  misconceive  Synod's  position  in  say- 
ing that  it  denies  the  right  of  our  church  courts  to  enjoin  obedience 
to  the  injunctions  of  the  superior  courts.  Synod  did  not  condemn 
Charleston  Presbytery  for  enjoining  obedience  to  the  deliverance  of 
the  Assembly,  but  for  having  made  an  injunction  of  its  own,  which 
the  Assembly  had  not  made,  and  which  no  court  has  any  lawful 
right  to  make,  under  our  Constitution.  The  Assembly  did  not  at- 
tempt to  limit  free  speech,  but  said  presbytery  did  do  this  of  its 
own  accord.  The  Synod  is  unwilling  to  be  regarded  as  favoring  any- 
thing like  disobedience  to  any  lawful  orders  of  any  church  courts. 
Obedience  to  the  lawful  deliverances  of  our  various  ecclesiastical 
tribunals  is  one  of  the  plainest  duties  of  every  Christian.  Had  said 
presbytery  simply  forbidden  an  unconstitutional,  factious  and  un- 
reasonable contending  on  the  part  of  those  under  its  jurisdiction, 
and  there  had  been  any  present  need  for  such  a  prohibition  in  said 
presbytery,  this  Synod  would  have  promptly  approved  the  same. 

IV.  Synod  disclaims  any  intention  to  charge  insincerity  upon  said 
presbytery.  The  only  charge  implied  in  Synod's  action  was  that 
the  presbytery  had  exceeded  its  lawful  jirerogatives,  and  had  taken 
action  which  no  court  of  our  clnncli  should  tolerate  for  one  moment.. 

Neander  M.  Woods, 
Thornton  C.  Whaling, 
T.  B.  Fraser. 

The  Elwaxg  Case. 

At  this  same  meeting  of  the  Synod  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee on  the  Report  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
Seminary  were  divided  as  majority  and  minority.  The 
former,  after  presenting  the  ordinary  snbjects  of  tlie 
board's  report,  went  on  to  mention  their  having  found  in 
the  hoard's  minntos,  also  submitted  to  tlieni  on  the  part 


■CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  607 

of  the  faculty,  the  formal  expression  of  its  will  touching 
the  case  of  Mr.  Elwang,  to  the  effect  that  "in  view  of  the 
late  action  of  a  majority  of  the  synods  controlling  this 
Seminary,  and  of  what  it  conceives  to  be  its  consequent 
duty,  Mr.  Elwang  should  abstain  from  attending  the  lec- 
tures of  Professor  Woodrow.  We  also  find  it  recorded  in 
the  minutes  that  the  Board  of  Directors,  at  its  meeting 
in  May, 

"Resolved.  That  this  board  hereby  approves  the  faculty's  action 
in  the  case"  of  Mr.  Elwang. 

1.  Touching  this  matter,  your  committee  recommend  to  Synod  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions: 

Resolved.  1.  That  this  Synod  disapproves  of  the  action  of  the  fac- 
ulty in  ordering  Mr.  W.  W.  Elwang  to  cease  attending  upon  the  lec- 
tures of  the  Rev.  Prof.  Woodrow  in  the  South  Carolina  University; 
and  also  of  the  action  of  tlie  Board  of  Directors  in  sustaining  and 
confirming  this  interdict. 

2.  This  Synod  disavows  the  interpretation  placed  on  its  previous 
orders  touching  the  Perkins  Professor  upon  which  the  faculty  and 
the  board  claim  to  base  their  late  action. 

II.  Your  committee  also  recommend  to  the  Synod  the  adoption  of 
the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That,  in  the  present  circumstances,  this  Synod  will 
defer  the  consideration  of  the  changes  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Seminary  which  are  proposed  by  the  joint  committee  appointed  by 
the  associated  Synods  for  its  revision. 

The  two  resolutions  contained  in  the  first  recommenda- 
tion of  the  majority  report  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
seventy-three  to  forty-four,  and  the  ayes  and  noes  were 
recorded.    Then  the  second  recommendation  was  adopted. 

The  following  was  the  minority  report : 

I  dissent  from  the  censure  of  the  board  and  the  faculty  in  tlie  case 
of  Mr.  Elwang.  The  faculty  were  virtually  authorized  by  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Orleans  to  act  in  the  case.  We  must  assume  that 
they  acted  conscientiously.  Mr.  Elwang's  rights  were  not  invaded, 
and  no  wrong  was  done  to  any  one.    Respectfully  submitted. 

Synod  of  South  Carolina^  1889. 

It  met  at  Spartanburg,  October  25th,  The  Synod's 
committee  on  the  minutes  of  the  preceding  Assembly  at 
Chattanooga  made  the  following  report : 


60S  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMP:S. 

Tliis  committee  finds  on  page  589  of  the  Assemlily's  minutes  that 
the  Assembly  "disapproved  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  South  Caro- 
lina, together  with  the  reasons  assigned  therefor,"  in  condemning 
Charleston  Presbytery's  order  "forbidding  the  public  contending 
against  the  decision  of  the  Assembly"  in  the  Woodrow  case. 

But,  inasmuch  as  Charleston  Presbytery  has  declared  in  its 
records  that  it  has  already  obeyed  Synod's  order  to  "review  and 
correct  its  proceeding  which  Synod  has  condemned,"  we  deem  it 
unnecessary  to  do  more  than  to  reaffirm  the  doctrine  that  every 
minister,  ruling  elder,  deacon  and  private  member  has  tiie  constitu- 
tional right  to  contend  publicly,  through  the  press  or  otherwise, 
against  the  decisions  of  all  our  courts  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest. 

The  minority  reported  as  follows : 
l^csolved,  That  the  Synod  expresses  its  acquiescence  in  the  de- 
cision of  the  General  Assembly  and  its  entire  satisfaction  with  its 
judgment,  inasmuch  as  its  action  was  not  intended  to  limit  eitlier 
the  liberty  or  private  judgment  or  the  constitutional  right  of  proper 
discussion. 

These  reports  Avere,  on  motion,  both  laid  on  the  table, 
and  also  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  minutes  be  received  simply  as  information  on 
the  ground  that  the  highest  court  of  the  church  having  spoken,  the 
lower  courts  should  acquiesce.  This  course  is  recommended  not  only 
as  in  accordance  with  law,  but  as  conducive  to  the  peace  and  har- 
mony of  the  church. 

The  Committee  on  the  Theological  Seminary  made  a 
report  in  four  sections,  the  whole  of  which  was  adopted. 
The  second  section  of  this  report  read  as  follows : 

2.  We  find  nothing  in  the  minutes  or  report  of  the  board  which 
requires  special  action  on  the  part  of  Synod,  but  we  feel  constrained 
to  express  the  wish  that  a  brighter  and  happier  day  may  soon  come 
for  tliis  beloved  Seminary. 

A  minority  of  this  committee  moved  to  amend  this  sec- 
tion by  adding  to  it  the  following : 

When  all  of  us  can  love  and  cherish  and  support  it  as  we  have 
done  in  the  past,  which  we  cannot  do  under  existing  circumstances. 
In  this  connection,  and  looking  to  this  result,  we  reiterate  the  action 
of  last  Synod  touching  the  prohibiting  of  students  from  attending 
the  lectures  of  Dr.  Woodrow,  who  is  an  authorized  minister  and  of 
good  standing  in  our  church,  and  hereby  call  this  matter  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  board  and  the  controlling  Svnods. 


CONTKOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  609 

This  motion  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  seventy- 
seven  to  sixty-three. 

3.  The  Synod  of  Georgia  having  officially  notified  us  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Revised  Constitution  (with  amendments)  by  that  body, 
we  recommend  that  this  be  received  as  information,  and  that  a 
special  committee  be  appointed  to  report  on  this  subject  at  our  next 
meeting. 

I  come  now  to  narrate  the  closing  details  of  this  evolu- 
tion controversy. 

1.  A  Tkansfer  from  Augusta  Presbytery. 

The  Presbytery  of  Augusta  met  at  Milledgeville,  Ga., 
April  4,  1890,  and  Dr.  Woodrow,  at  his  own  request,  was 
■dismissed  to  join  the  Charleston  Presbytery.  His  letter 
of  application  to  be  thus  dismissed  is  dated  April  3d. 
The  writer  began  with  expressions  of  regret  that  the  time 
had  come  which  was  to  separate  him  from  the  brethren 
with  whom  he  had  been  connected  ever  since  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Augusta  Presbytery.  By  that  presbytery  he 
said  he  was  licensed  in  1859,  and  ordained  in  1860. 
Within  its  bounds  he  had  spent  the  early  years  of  his 
ministry,  preaching  to  vacant  congregations  and  in  des- 
titute communities  where  no  Presbyterian  preacher  was 
ever  heard  before.  He  had  also  served  as  professor  mean- 
while in  Oglethorpe  University,  at  Milledgeville.  But 
Rule  277  of  our  Book  of  Church  Order  requires  a  church 
member  or  officer,  when  removing  his  residence  into  an- 
other church  or  presbytery,  ,to  transfer  his  ecclesiastical 
relations  along  with  his  residence,  and  there  was  no 
longer  any  reason  why  this  rule  should  not  apply  to  him. 
When  the  Synod  of  Georgia  elected  him  a  professor  in 
the  Seminary  at  Columbia,  and  sent  him  there,  "I  was 
not  removed,"  said  he,  ''from  your  jurisdiction,  since  that 
field  belonged  to  your  presbytery  and  synod,  as  well  as 
to  all  the  others."  This  was  the  rule  with  all  the  different 
professors.  An  ambassador  does  not  lose  his  citizenship 
by  residing  at  the  court  to  which  he  is  sent.  "When  I 
■ceased  doing  that  work,  I  was  engaged  defending  myself," 
said  he,  "from"  charges  affecting  the  scripturalness  of  my 
belief,  with  re2:ard  to  which  vou  had  already  vindicated 


610  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMKS. 

me;  and  whon,  a  year  ago,  yon  sent  me  as  your  com- 
missioner to  tlie  General  Assembly,  I  felt  I  was  still  free 
from  the  requirement  [of  rule  277  j  nntil  I  had  rendered 
an  account  to  yon  of  my  diligence,  and  had  been  approved. 
This  was  done  at  yonr  last  meeting.  Bnt  now  there  is 
nothing  to  justify  my  longer  retaining  my  connection 
with  yon  while  I  live  outside  your  bounds.  I  am  doing 
no  ecclesiastical  work  under  your  jurisdiction." 

It  was  true,  he  was  still  doing  the  work  of  a  religions 
editor,  every  week  for  the  past  twenty-hve  years  sending 
forth  The  Southern  Freshyterian  to  thousands  of  readers, 
and  this  with  the  expressed  approbation  of  his  presbytery 
and  the  Synod  of  Georgia  ;  bnt  this  was  not  by  their  ap- 
pointment, nor  under  their  jurisdiction  in  the  doing  of  it, 
except  as  he  was  under  the  general  superintendence  of 
the  presbytery,  which  is  over  every  minister  respecting 
his  conduct.  Xow,  however,  he  is  honorably  dismissed 
from  Augusta  Presbytery  to  become  a  member  of  Charles- 
ton Presbytery,  within  whose  bounds  he  has  lived  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century. 

2.  Dk.   Woodkow  IX  THE  South  Carolina  College. 

In  the  Soufhern  Presbyterian  of  May  15,  1S90,  a])- 
pears  the  following  article : 

The  Seminary  Boycott. 

At  its  meeting  last  week,  tlie  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Columbia 
Tlieological   Seminary  adopted  tlie  following: 

"Inasmuoli  as  the  statement  has  been  circulated,  that  the  Semi- 
nary has  boycotted  the  chair  of  Professor  Woodrow,  of  Geology  and 
Mineralogy,  in  the  State  University,  the  Board  of  Directors  feel 
called  upon  to  make  the  following  minute  for  the  benefit  of  all  con- 
cerned : 

"In  1887  a  student  applied  to  the  faculty  for  permission  to  at- 
tend Dr.  Woodrow"s  course  of  lectures  at  the  University.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  the  application  were  such  that  the  faculty  declined  to 
grant  it,  and  the  board  sustained  the  faculty. 

"The  case  was  exceptional,  and  did  not  determine  the  i)olicy  of  the 
Seminary. 

"To  guard  against  tlio  ])()ssil)ili(y  of  su<-li  misconstruction  in  the 
future  the  boaid  hereby  directs  the  faculty  to  refer  all  sucli  appli- 
cants to  the  presbyteries  under  whose  care  they  may  be,  and  govern 
itself  according  to  the  written  wishes  of  the  presbyteries." 


controversies  of  science.  611 

Editouial  Remarks.* 

This  paper  will  doubtless  be  read  with  interest,  and  also  will  ex- 
cite some  curiosity.  As  far  as  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  receding 
from  a  wrong  position,  and  an  attempt  to  relieve  the  Seminary  from 
the  odium  which  the  course  of  the  faculty  and  the  board  had  brought 
upon  it,  it  will  be  received  with  satisfaction  by  lovers  of  the  right. 
This  feeling  cannot  be  wholly  prevented  by  the  thought  that  the 
receding  might  have  been  more  unambiguous  and  straightforward, 
and  the  statement  of  facts  more  accurate;  for,  however  defective  it 
may  be  in  these  respects,  it  seems  at  least  to  be  intended  as  a  step 
in  the  right  direction.  When  wrong  has  been  done,  any  tendency 
towards  the  right,  however  feebly  and  hesitating,  is  to  be  com- 
mended. An  open,  frank,  manly  confession  of  the  wrong,  and  a 
strong  effort  to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  would  cer- 
tainly be  much  more  worthy  of  commendation;  but  let  us  not 
despise  the  feeble  beginnings. 

The  curiositj'  alluded  to  begins  to  be  excited  by  the  first  clause  in 
the  preamble,  "Inasmuch  as  the  statement  has  been  circulated  tliat 
the  Seminary  has  boycotted  the  chair  of  Professor  Woodrow."  That 
statement  has  been  made  several  times,  beginning  between  two  and 
three  years  ago,  about  the  time  when  the  fact  occurred  which  is 
embodied  in  the  statement — in  1887.  It  may  naturally  be  asked 
how  it  happens  that  the  directors  only  now  at  this  late  date  feel 
called  upon  to  explain  it,  or  explain  it  away? 

*  -;?  -X-  -X-  -»  *  *  -s  ■*  -» 

In  its  new  enactment,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  board  takes 
away  from  the  faculty  the  right  to  give  permission  to  any  Seminary 
student  to  attend  Professor  VVoodrow's  lectures,  and  forbids  all  such 
attendance,  except  when  the  presbytery  concerned  is  applied  to  and 
gives  its  permission. 

The  faculty  are  still  free  to  give  permission  to  students  to  attend 
other  lectures  in  the  University  of  South  Carolina,  but  not  Professor 
Woodrow's.  So  far  as  the  board  is  concerned,  these  are  still  "boy- 
cotted"; and  the  only  way  to  escape  from  this  prohibition  is  by 
formal  application  to  a  presbytery  and  formal  resolution  granting 
permission  from  that  body. 

On  tlie  22d  of  May,  1800,  appeared  the  following-: 
The  Seminary  Directors'  Explanatory  Minute. 
Last  week  we  published  the  action  of  the  Theological  Seminary 
Board  of  Directors,  depriving  the  faculty  of  the  right  to  grant  per- 
mission to  students  to  attend  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures  in  the 


*  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  sometimes  shortening  these  editorial 
remarks. 


012  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

University,  and  making  it  necessary  for  those  who  desire  to  do  so  to 
obtain  beforcliand  written  permission  from  their  presbyteries.  We 
said  that  "tlie  board's  statement  of  the  case  may  hardly  be  accepted 
as  quite  full  or  accurate,"  but  did  not  then  show  wherein  it  was  in- 
accurate. How  very  far  it  is  from  being  correct  we  shall  now  de- 
monstrate. As  we  intimated  last  week,  the  board  must  have  forgot- 
ten; otherwise  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  have  said  what 
they  did.    Let  us  see. 

At  the  recent  meeting,  the  board  said: 

"In  1887  a  student  applied  to  the  faculty  for  permission  to  attend 
Dr.  Woodrow's  course  of  lectures  at  the  University.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  application  were  such  that  the  faculty  declined  to 
grant  it,  and  the  board  sustained  the  faculty. 

"The  case  was  exceptional,  and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of  the 
Seminary." 

At  its  meeting  in  May,  1888,  the  board  said: 

"Whereas,  this  board  has  heard  a  statement  of  facts  from  the 
faculty  touching  their  action  in  regard  to  Messrs.  W.  W.  Elwang 
and  W.  C.  C.  Foster  attending  the  lectures  of  Professor  James  Wood- 
row  in  South  Carolina  University,  therefore, 

"Resolved,  1.  That  this  board  hereby  approve  of  the  faculty's 
action  in  the  cases  of  said  students. 

"Resolved,  2.  That  the  faculty's  statement  of  facts  be  spread  upon 
our  records. 

"Resolved,  3.  In  view  of  the  agitation  in  the  church  growing  out 
of  these  cases,  that  our  religious  papers  be  requested  to  publish  this 
statement." 

Compare  these  two  statements;    do  they  agree? 

The  two  points  emphasized  in  the  recent  statement  are  that  "a 
student" — a  single  student — was  concerned,  and  that  the  "case" — 
single  case — was  exceptional,  rendered  so  by  the  "circumstances  of 
the  application,"  and  that  it  was  solely  because  of  these  "circum- 
stances" "that  the  faculty  declined  to  grant  it." 

But  in  1888  the  board  approved  the  action  of  the  faculty  in  two 
cases,  not  in  one  alone — "their  action  in  regard  to  Messrs.  W.  W. 
Elwang  and  W.  C.  C.  Foster;"  and  in  one  of  these  there  never  had 
been  any  application  attended  by  "circumstances"  or  otherwise! 

How  could  the  board  in  1890  be  so  forgetful  in  two  years?  Surely 
it  ought  to  have  refreshed  the  memory  by  reading  the  official  records 
before  venturing  to  make  this  statement. 

Bnt  the  next  point  is  much  more  serious.  The  board  says  that 
"the  circumstances  of  the  application  were  such  that  the  faculty 
declined  to  grant  it,  and  the  board  sustained  the  faculty."  If  it  had 
not  been  for  these  circumstances,  the  faculty  would  not  have  de- 
clined to  grant  it,  nor  would  the  board  have  approved,  if  the  faculty 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  613 

had  done  so.  Let  the  correctness  of  this  statement  be  tested  by 
what  the  faculty  told  the  board  was  the  ground  of  their  declining 
in  the  paper  above  referred  to,  which  was  published  by  the  board's 
request   {Southern  Presbyterian,  May  24,  1888)  : 

"The  following  expository  minute  was  adopted  by  the  faculty 
soon  after  formal  action  was  taken  prohibiting  Mr.  Elwang's  at- 
tendance upon  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures: 

"  '1.  In  taking  this  action  the  faculty  was  guided  by  the  principle 
of  obedience  to  constituted  authority.  It  recognizes  itself  as  ap- 
pointed by  the  Board  of  Directors  and  the  controlling  Synods  for 
the  discharge  of  solemn  trusts  confided  by  them  to  its  hands,  and 
as  bound,  so  long  as  it  freely  remains  in  connection  with  the  Sem- 
inary, to  comply  with  the  will  of  these  authorities.  These  bodies 
have  removed  Professor  Woodrow  from  relation  to  this  institution, 
because  of  their  unwillingness  to  have  the  influence  of  his  teaching 
exerted  upon  its  students.  The  purport  of  this  action  obviously  was 
to  separate  the  students  from  that  influence.  But  were  they  per- 
mitted to  attend  his  lectures,  which  might  be  expected  to  involve  the 
topic  in  regard  to  which  the  board  and  the  Synods  have  taken 
action,  it  would  be  virtually  all  one  as  if  he  were  still  occupying  a 
chair  in  the  Seminary.  The  only  real  difTerence  would  be  as  to  the 
place  of  instruction.  A  few  steps  in  space  annihilated  the  dif- 
ference. 

"  'It  is  true  that  Professor  Woodrow  does  not  now  teach  under  the 
sanction  of  the  bodies  governing  the  Seminary;  but  were  the  stu- 
dents of  that  institution  formally  allowed  to  put  themselves  under 
his  instructions,  the  case  would  be  practically  the  same  as  if  he  had 
that  sanction.  The  faculty  were  therefore  obliged  by  a  sense  of  duty 
to  fulfill  the  manifest  intentions  of  the  controlling  authorities,  by 
arresting  the  attendance  of  a  Seminary  student  upon  the  lectures  of 
Professor  Woodrow.  .  .  .  So,  a  body  of  theological  students  is 
limited  by  its  relation  to  the  government  under  which  it  exists  in 
the  exercise  of  its  freedom.  It  is  one  thing  for  a  Seminary  student 
to  read  in  private  the  writings  of  Professor  Woodrow,  and  quite 
anotlier  to  attend  publicly  and  statedly  upon  his  instructions.  In 
the  one  case  his  liberty  of  free  inquiry  is  unrestrained;  in  the  other, 
it  is  restricted  by  the  requirements  of  an  authority  to  which  he  is 
bound  to  submit,  as  long  as  his  voluntary  subjection  to  it  continues. 
In  the  present  instance,  this  limiting  influence  upon  free  action 
operates  in  a  two-fold  manner;  it  binds  both  the  students  and  the 
faculty  of  the  Seminary  to  comply  with  the  expressed  will  of  the 
bodies  by  which  the  institution  is  governed.  Neither  class  is  at 
liberty  to  disobey  lawful  authority.  If  the  yoke  is  intolerable,  free- 
dom may  be  enjoyed  by  retirement  from  the  institution.'  (Minutes,, 
pp.  67-70.)" 


614  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

In  view  of  tins  "expository  minute,"  how  could  the  board  say 
what  it  did  two  weeks  ago  about  its  action  two  years  ago?  Is  not 
such  forgetfulness  well-nigh  inexcusable?  Why  did  it  not  take  more 
pains  to  "be  sure  of  its  facts"? 

In  1888  the  board  approved  the  faculty's  action,  and,  to  make  sure 
tliat  the  reasons  of  this  approval  should  not  be  misunderstood,  re- 
quested that  the  faculty's  statement  explaining  its  action  and  set- 
ting forth  the  grounds  of  it,  should  be  published.  In  its  "expository 
minute"  the  faculty  says  that,  in  its  action  "prohibiting  Mr.  El- 
wang's  attendance  upon  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures,"  it  "was 
guided  by  the  principle  of  obedience  to  constituted  authority"  .  .  . 
and  "bound"  "to  comply  with  the  will  of  these  authorities," 
namely,  the  board  and  the  controlling  Synods;  that  "these  bodies 
have  removed  Professor  Woodrow  from  relation  to  this  institution 
because  of  their  unwillingness  to  have  the  influence  of  his  teaching 
exerted  upon  its  students.  The  purport  of  this  action  obviously  was 
to  separate  students" — not  Mr.  Elwang  on  account  of  "the  circum- 
stances of  his  application" — but  "to  separate  the  students  from  that 
influence;"  hence  the  prohibition  of  Mr.  Elwang.  The  faculty  fur- 
ther says,  "The  faculty  were,  therefore,  obliged  by  a  sense  of  duty  to 
fulfill  the  manifest  intentions  of  the  controlling  authorities,  by  ar- 
resting tiie  attendance  of  a  Seminary  student  upon  the  lectures  of 
Prof.  Woodrow."  It  says  further  that  both  the  students  and  the 
faculty  are  bound  "to  comply  with  the  expressed  will  of  the  bodies 
by  which  the  institution  is  governed,"  and  therefore  it  had  taken 
its  action.  The  principle  is  general,  universal,  in  its  application, 
says  the  faculty;  and  the  board,  in  1888,  "approved."  Now,  the 
board  says,  "the  case  was  exceptional,  and  did  not  determine  the 
policy  of  the  Seminary;"  that  the  faculty  had  acted  as  it  did  on 
account  of  the  "circumstances  of  the  application."  Could  two 
statements  be  more  directly  contradictory?  The  faculty  in  1888 
adopted  an  "expository  minute;"  two  weeks  ago  the  board  felt 
"called  upon  to  make  the  following  minute,"  which  we  have  been 
examining;  are  not  other  explanatory  minutes  sadly  needed?  In 
view  of  the  direct,  palpable  contradictions  pointed  out,  what  is  the 
board,  or  rather  the  part  of  it  concerned,  going  to  do?  It  wishes  to 
have  the  confidence  of  its  constituents;  confidence  is  not  gained  or 
retained  by  such  contradictions. 

On  June  nth  appears  the  following:  article: 

The  Rev.  Dk.  Thompson's  Reply. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian:    My  attention  has 
been  called  to  your  recent  editorials  touching  a  paper  presented  by 
myself  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Columbia 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  615 

Theological  Seminary,  and  as  you  invite,  1  hope  you  will  give  place 
to  the  following  reply: 

1.  The  resolutions  you  quote  had  not  been  forgotten;  I  voted  for 
their  adoption,  and  with  a  knowledge  of  the  reasons  for  and  the 
meaning  of  them,  I  prepared  the  paper  you  have  seen  fit  to  criticise, 
and  1  reaffirm  its  accuracy  as  to  fact.  Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that 
you  might  reason  from  wrong  premises,  or  that  your  memory  might 
be  defective?  Such  a  reflection  should  make  you  more  guarded  in 
your  statements,  and  more  temperate  in  your  language. 

2.  That  paper  was  presented  with  the  sincere  desire  to  relieve  the 
long- vexed  Seminary,  as  far  as  possible, of  embarrassment,  that  witli- 
out  hindrance  it  might  pursue  its  God-given  work  of  preparing 
young  men  for  the  gospel  ministry.  The  board  so  understood  it, 
and  when  it  was  passed,  only  one  member  declined  to  vote. 

It  seems  to  me  that,  unless  there  are  those  who  are  bent  upon 
agitation,  we  might  now  have  peace.  W.  T.  Thompson'. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  May  29,  1800. 

Editorial  Remarks. 

1.  In  the  first  sentence  of  his  first  paragraph.  Dr.  Thompson  shows 
that  he  cannot  adopt  the  apology  which  we  suggested — forgetful- 
ness :  not  a  very  good  one,  it  is  true,  but  yet  the  best  we  could  think 
of,  and,  indeed,  the  only  one  that  would  relieve  the  board  from  the 
terrible  predicament  in  which  it  has  placed  itself.  He  tells  us  he 
remembered  the  paper  he  voted  for  in  1888,  and  yet  prepared  the 
paper  adopted  in  1890!  Most  surprising  of  all,  he  "reaffirms  its 
accuracy  as  to  fact."  We  wish  he  had  tried  to  set  forth  his  reasons 
for  believing  in  the  accuracy  of  this  reaffirmation.  As  we  demon- 
strated two  weeks  ago,  the  two  papers  are  utterly  inconsistent  with 
each  other.     Both  cannot  be  correct. 

The  last  (1890)  says  that  the  application  for  permission  to  at- 
tend Dr.  Woodrow's  lectures  at  the  University  was  declined  because 
of  "the  circumstances  of  the  application;"  that  "the  case  was  ex- 
ceptional, and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of  the  Seminary." 

The  first  (1888)  says  that  the  faculty's  declaration  is  approved 
which  asserts  that  the  "purport  of  the  action"  of  the  controlling 
Synods  "obviously  was  to  separate  the  students  from  that  influ- 
ence"— the  influence  of  Professor  Woodrow's  teaching;  and  that 
"the  faculty  were  therefore  obliged  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  fulfill  the 
manifest  intention  of  the  controlling  authorities,  by  arresting  the 
attendance  of  a  Seminary  student  upon  the  lectures  of  Professor 
Woodrow." 

Yet,  Dr.  Thompson  said  in  his  paper,  and  now  "reaffirms,"  that  this 
act,  performed  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  obedience  to  the 
controlling   authorities — that   all-embracing,    universal    principle — 


G16  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

"was  exceptional  and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of  the  Seminary." 
How  could  he  prepare  that  paper  and  '"reaffirm  its  accuracy  as  to 
facf? 

Nothing  more  can  be  needed  to  prove  its  entire,  complete  in-"accu- 
raey  as  to  fact."'  The  language  of  the  paper  of  1888  is  clear  and 
needs  no  further  interpretation.  If  it  did,  we  find  it  in  the  inter- 
pretation given  by  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  in  defending 
the  board's  action  before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  in  1888. 
Contemporaneous  construction  by  the  parties  immediately  con- 
cerned is  of  the  highest  value.  At  tliat  meeting  the  Hon.  D.  S.  Hen- 
derson, of  Aiken,  one  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  said,  as  reported  for 
the  Columbia  Register,  "I  esteem  this  the  most  important  matter 
that  has  or  will  come  before  this  Synod.  It  brings  up  the  contest 
fairly  and  squarely,  and  it  should  be  settled  once  for  all.  When 
we  meet  as  Christian  brethren,  there  should  be  no  sides.  The  charge 
here  made  is  that  the  faculty  was  wrong  in  forbidding  students  to 
attend  the  lectures  of  Dr.  VVoodrow.  In  considering  the  charge, 
Synod  should  look  at  the  surroundings.  The  board  had  been  directed 
to  remove  Dr.  Woodrow  from  the  Seminary  because  he  taught  what 
was  contrary  to  the  word  of  God;  and  if  it  was  improper  for  him 
to  teach  in  the  Seminary,  it  was  improper  for  students  to  hear  him 
elsewhere.  It  was  not  an  effort  to  boycott  Dr.  Woodrow,  but  it 
would  be  mockery  to  prohibit  it  in  the  Seminary  and  allow  the  stu- 
dents to  hear  it  elsewhere.  The  board  felt  it  its  duty  to  say  that 
what  should  not  be  taught  in  the  Seminary  should  not  be  listened 
to  elsewhere." 

"The  board  felt  it  its  duty  to  say  that  what  should  not  be  taught 
in  the  Seminary  should  not  be  listened  to  elsewhere."  And  yet  Dr. 
Thompson,  and  the  directors  under  his  lead,  now  say  that  "the  case 
was  exceptional  and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of  the  Seminary." 
How  could  they  say  that? 

Dr.  Tliompson  next  asks  us  if  it  ever  occurred  to  us  that  we  miglit 
reason  from  wrong  premises,  or  that  our  memory  might  be  defective. 
Yes,  very  often.  Hence  we  always  exercise  the  utmost  care  to  avoid 
the  former.  And  knowing  how  defective  our  memory  is,  we  take 
the  utmost  pains  to  be  sure  of  our  facts,  as  in  this  case,  by  carefully 
examining  the  documentary  evidence  bearing  upon  the  matter.  We 
have  not  in  the  least  trusted  to  memory,  as  the  readers  of  our 
articles  see.  Would  that  the  board  had  been  equally  careful !  But 
if  we  have  not  been  temperate,  we  are  ready  and  anxious  to  confess 
our  fault,  as  soon  as  it  shall  be  pointed  out  to  us  by  friend  or  foe. 
We  try  to  make  our  meaning  unmistakably  clear,  but  wholly  to 
avoid  intemperate  language. 

2.  We  do  not  question  the  motive  that  actuated  Dr.  Tliompson  and 
his  fellow-directors.     But,  as  we  said  in  our  first  article,  while  the 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  617 

"intention  was  no  doubt  good,"  "the  judgment  displayed  in  attempt- 
ing to  carry  it  out,  scarcely  deserves  equal  praise."  The  desire  was 
"to  relieve  the  long-vexed  Seminary,  as  far  as  possible,  of  embarrass- 
ment"— a  praiseworthy  desire,  certainly.  It  has  been  "long-vexed" 
by  those  who  now  control  it — for  six  years  or  more,  ever  since  they 
began  their  assaults  upon  one  of  the  professors,  thereby  causing  two 
other  professors  to  leave,  and  reducing  the  attendance  of  students, 
so  that  it  was  necessary  to  close  the  Seminary's  doors.  Part  of  the 
"vexing"  later  consisted  in  "determining  the  policy  of  the  Sem- 
inary" "to  separate  students  from  the  influence"  of  Professor  Wood- 
row's  teaching,  not  only  in  the  Seminary,  but  in  the  University, 
or  wherever  else  he  might  teach.  Can  the  board  now  hope  to  relieve 
the  Seminary  from  embarrassment  by  denying,  in  the  face  of  the 
plainest  facts,  that  such  policy  was  established?     Surely  not. 

If  the  policy,  as  established  in  1888,  was  right,  adhere  unflinch- 
ingly to  it.  If  it  was  wrong,  hasten  to  say  so  in  clear,  unmistakable 
terms,  and  abrogate  it.  There  is  no  other  fair,  square,  manly.  Chris- 
tian way. 

Has  the  board  done  either?  No,  it  has  not.  If,  as  asserted  in 
1888,  the  controlling  authorities  required  students  to  be  separated 
from  the  influence  of  Professor  Woodrow's  teaching,  the  board  has 
now  disobeyed  these  authorities  in  making  it  possible  for  Seminary 
students  to  come  under  that  influence  by  obtaining  written  permis- 
sion from  their  presbyteries.  If  the  controlling  authorities  did  not 
require  this,  the  board  has  now  required  it,  by  its  new  rule  that  the 
faculty  may  not  give  permission,  that  the  students  may  not  listen  to 
this  University  professor,  unless  they  have  written  permission  from 
their  presbyteries.  Does  the  board,  after  reflection,  really  think  this 
is  a  good  way  to  "relieve  tlie  long-vexed  Seminary  of  embarrass- 
ment" ? 

Respecting  Dr.  Thompson's  last  sentence,  we  must  say  a  few 
words.  We  have  no  desire  for  agitation.  During  all  these  weary 
years,  we  have  constantly  stood  on  the  defensive,  seeking  to  ward 
off  and  repel  assaults  upon  what  we  thought  and  think  to  be  right 
and  true.  So,  in  this  instance — the  subject  has  not  been  introduced 
by  us.  Notwithstanding  the  continued  resting  of  the  ban  of  the 
"controlling  authorities"  upon  Professor  Woodrow,  we  have  for  a 
long  time  been  silent;  content  to  suff'er  in  silence,  if  indeed  that 
is  suffering  which  is  accompanied  by  the  consciousness  before  God  of 
being  in  the  right — that  it  is  the  result  of  an  honest  defence  of  his 
truth.  Now,  this  action  of  the  board  came  to  us  for  publication; 
if  we  had  published  its  allusion  to  Dr.  Woodrow  without  comment, 
we  would  reasonably  have  been  regarded  as  acquiescing  in  its  accu- 
racy, hence  we  were  forced  to  point  out  its  inaccuracies  and  its 
general  character — not  for  the  sake  of  agitation,  but  for  the  sake 


01  S  MY   I-IFJ-:  AXD  TIMES. 

of  tlic  truth.    If  agitation  has  been  renewed,  the  board,  and  not  we, 
must  be  lield  responsible  for  it. 

Since  Dr.  Thompson's  reply  must  appear  so  wholly  unsatisfactory 
to  all  who  examine  the  facts,  will  the  other  directors  who  voted  for 
the  papers  of  1888  and  1890  permit  the  matter  to  stand  as  it  now  is? 

The  following  a])peared  on  Jmic  12,  1S90: 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Tiioaipson's  Secoxd  Reply. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian:  I  am  sure  the  sub- 
joined remarks  will  evince,  to  all  unprejudiced  minds,  the  entire 
accuracy  of  the  paper  recently  adopted  by  the  Board  of  Directors  of 
the  Columbia  Seminary. 

1.  The  names  of  Messrs.  Elwang  and  Foster  appear  in  the  resolu- 
tions of  1888  passed  by  the  board,  and  upon  this  fact  chieHy  the 
discrepancy  is  made  to  hang. 

Mr.  Foster  had  been  attending  Dr.  Woodrow's  lectures;  he  made 
no  request  to  be  permitted  to  continue  to  take  them.  He  withdrew 
from  the  Seminary  before  the  close  of  the  term.  The  faculty  took 
no  action  in  his  case,  as  it  had  learned  only  a  short  time  before  his 
leaving  of  his  attendance  upon  the  lectures;  the  board  heard  the 
statement,  and  approved  the  non-action. 

Mr.  Elwang  is  the  only  student  with  whom  the  faculty  had  any 
dealing.  The  board,  in  its  paper,  so  affirms,  and  the  point  thus 
made  and  insisted  upon  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  the  faculty's 
minute  quoted  by  yourself,  which  reads,  "The  following  expository 
minute  was  adopted  by  the  faculty  soon  after  formal  action  was 
taken  prohihiting  Mr.  Eiwang's  attendance  upon  Professor  Wood- 
row's  lectures." 

Thus,  it  seems  that  but  one  person  has  ever  made  application,  but 
one  case  has  ever  been  before  the  faculty,  and  but  one  case  has  ever 
been  prohibited. 

The  resolution  of  1888,  and  the  position  of  the  board  in  1890,  to 
this  extent,  then,  are  seen  to  be  at  one. 

2.  Mr.  PJlwang's  case  was  presented  in  such  a  way,  and  attended 
by  such  circumstances,  as  led  the  board  to  sustain  the  faculty's 
course. 

This  I  maintained  in  the  Synod  at  Greenwood  (see  Southern  Pres- 
byterian of  October  18,  1888),  where  I  am  reported  as  saying,  "The 
faculty  were  driven  to  this  action,  and  had  no  alternative.  The  cir- 
cumstances and  reasons  therefor  should  be  considered,  and  not  the 
naked  fact." 

That  "circumstances''  there  were,  and  that  these  must  have  been 
"exceptional,"  appears  from  an  editorial  in  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian of  February  23,  1888,  which  tells  us  that,  pending  the  Elwang 


CONTROVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE.  610 

<;ase,  "the  student  from  Alabama  (Mr.  L'oster)  was  attending  the 
lectures  in  question,  and  he  was  forbidden  neither  by  the  faculty 
formally,  nor  by  the  faculty  informally,  nor  by  Dr.  Girardeau,  or 
other  member  of  the  faculty,  nor  even  by  a  son-in-law.  And  he  con- 
tinued to  attend  until  he  left  the  Seminary  'in  good  standing.'  " 

Thus  again,  it  is  shown  that  there  was  but  one  case,  and  that  it 
must  have  been  exceptional.  Those  circumstances  need  not  be  re- 
hearsed, and,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  they  are  not  revived. 

Since,  then,  there  never  was  but  one  case,  and  it  was  dealt  with 
in  view  of  its  specific  features,  how  can  it  be  claimed,  with  any  show 
of  reason  or  of  justice,  that  it  determined  the  Seminary's  policy  in 
regard  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  chair  in  the  State -University  ? 

The  position  of  the  board  in  1890,  therefore,  stands  to  this  extent, 
that  "the  case  was  exceptional,  and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of 
the  Seminary." 

3.  You  concede  the  pacific  intention  of  the  board  in  adopting  that 
paper,  indeed,  the  purpose  of  that  paper  is  evident  upon  its  face, 
it  wears  no  disguise — it  is  transparent  through  and  through — and  1 
feel  certain  that  the  dispassionate  judgment  of  your  readers  will 
cordially  commend  it,  and  will  deprecate,  not  a  calm  statement  of 
what  you  and  your  correspondents  may  conceive  to  be  the  facts,  for 
the  sake  of  truth,  but  the  spirit  in  which  you  and  they  employ  them, 
and  the  harsh  insinuations  in  some  instances  connected  with  them, 
as  savoring  of  unwarranted  and  hurtful  agitation. 

I  Avould  suggest  to  one  of  your  contributors,  who  delivers  a  homily 
upon  what  is  "honorable."  "that  he  has  impeached  his  own  character 
as  a"  teacher  upon  this  subject,  when  he  writes,  as  he  does,  of  Chris- 
tian brethren  and  withholds  his  name.  W.  T.  Thompson. 

Editorial  Remarks. 

We  are  glad  that  Dr.  Tliompson  has  at  length  seen  the  necessity 
he  Avas  under  of  at  least  making  an  efl'ort  to  relieve  himself  and  the 
Board  of  Directors  from  the  painful  position  into  which  he  has  led 
them.  A  very  little  reflection  must  have  convinced  him  that  a  mere 
reaffirmation  would  not  answer  the  purpose.  The  fact  that  he  has 
signally  failed  to  accomplish  his  object  should  not  deprive  him  of 
the  credit  he  deserves  for  having  made  the  eflfort. 

1.  Dr.  Thompson  says  that  the  "discrepancy  is  made  to  hang" 
"chiefly"  upon  the  fact  that  "the  names  of  Messrs.  Elwang  and  Fos- 
ter appear  in  the  resolutions  of  1888  passed  by  the  board.  '  Oh!  no, 
not  "chiefly:"  for,  after  we  had  proved  the  discrepancy  by  placing' 
the  action  in  1888  and  1890  side  by  side,  we  proceeded  to  say,  "But 
the  next  point  is  much  more  serious,"  and  then  showed  wherein  it 
was  so.  It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  what  we  said  in  this  first 
point    (;\Iay  22d)  :    if  it  liad  been.  Dr.  Tliompson  has  saved  us  the 


620  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

trouble;  for  he  implicitly  admits,  witli  unmistakable  plainness,  that 
in  1888  "the  policy  of  the  Seminary"  was  to  prevent  attendance  on 
Dr.  Woodrow's  lectures,  by  telling  us  that  "the  faculty  took  no 
action  in  his  [Mr.  Foster's]  case,  as  it  had  learned  only  a  short  time 
before  his  leaving  of  his  attendance  upon  the  lectures."  Thus  Dr. 
Thompson  tells  us  the  policy  had  been  determined,  but  in  this  case 
there  was  no  need  or  opportunity  of  applying  it. 

Dr.  Thompson's  further  attempt  to  show  that  "the  case  was  ex- 
ceptional, and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of  the  Seminary,"  be- 
cause "Mr.  Elwang  is  the  only  student"  to  whom  the  policy  was  ap- 
plied, is  equivalent  to  an  attempt  to  prove  that  the  sentencing  of  a 
single  murderer  to  death  does  not  determine  the  policy  of  the  State 
to  punish  murder  with  deatli,  but  shows  that  the  case  is  "excep- 
tional." But  it  is  useless  to  argue  this  point,  since  the  faculty  has 
told  us  why  it  prohibited  in  the  so-called  "exceptional"  case.  "The 
faculty  unanimously  adopted"  as  the  "formal  expression  of  its  will 
touching  his  [Mr.  Elwang's]  case"  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That,  in  view  of  the  late  action  of  a  majority*  of  the 
Synods  controlling  this  Seminary,  and  of  what  it  conceives  to  be  its 
consequent  duty  in  the  administration  of  the  disciplinary  govern- 
ment of  the  institution,  the  faculty  hereby  expresses  its  judgment 
that  Mr.  Elwang  should  abstain  from  attending  the  lectures  of  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow."  (Minutes,  p.  G3.) 

This  action  the  board,  in  1888,  made  its  own.  It  lays  down  the 
"policy"  as  "determined"  and  applies  it;  and  yet  Dr.  Thompson 
now  insists  that  because  it  was  applied  to  only  one  person,  "the  case 
was  exceptional,  and  did  not  determine  the  policy  of  the  Seminary." 
Further,  the  faculty  and  board  in  1888  said  that  the  action  wa» 
taken  "in  view  of  the  late  action  of  a  majority  of  the  Synods  con- 
trolling this  Seminai-y,"  and  now  Dr.  Thompson  and  the  board  say 
the  action  was  taken  because  of  "the  circumstances  of  the  applica- 
tion"! And  still  further,  Dr.  Thompson  says  above,  "The  resolu- 
tions of  1888,  and  the  position  of  the  board  in  1890,  to  this  extent^ 
then,  are  seen  to  be  at  one"! 

2.  Nearly  all  of  what  Dr.  Thompson  says  under  the  second  head 
has  already  been  examined.  But  he  was  right,  in  1888,  when  he 
said,  "The  faculty  were  driven  to  this  action,  and  had  no  alterna- 
tive." As  the  faculty  stated,  it  felt  itself  driven  to  the  action  by 
the  "principle  of  obedience  to  constituted  authority";  it  was  "bound 
to  comply  with  the  will  of  these  authorities";  "the  faculty  were, 
therefore,  obliged  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  fulfill  the  manifest  inten- 
tions of  the  controlling  authorities,  by  arresting  the  attendance  of 
a  Seminary  student  upou  the  lectures  of  Professor  Woodrow."    Yes, 

*  The  Svnod  of  South  Georgia  and  Florida  had  not  then  met. 


CONTEOVEESIES  OF  SCIEIS'CE.  621 

the  faculty  were  "driven,"  as  Dr.  Thompson  says;  but  "driven"  by 
a  wholly  different  motive  power  from  that  which  he  now  alleges. 
Surely  nothing  more  is  needed  under  this  head  to  show  how  utterly 
untenable  is  the  position  now  taken  by  Dr.  Thompson  and  the 
board. 

3.  All  that  is  said  of  "pacific  intention,'"  "spirit,"  "harsh  insinua- 
tions," "hurtful  agitation,"  etc.,  is  aside  from  the  questions  at  issue. 
It  is  to  no  purpose  when  contradictory  statements  are  made  and 
the  contradiction  is  proved,  to  say,  "We  meant  well;  our  intention 
•was  pacific;  don't  expose  our  inconsistency,  for  that  would  be  'hurt- 
ful agitation,'  and  you  would  be  showing  a  bad  spirit."  And,  there- 
fore, we  do  not  care  to  reply  to  Dr.  Thompson's  remarks  under  the 
third  head.  If  he  and  those  acting  with  him  deprecate  agitation, 
why  did  they  renew  it? 

We  have  shown  beyond  question  that  the  policy  of  prohibition  was 
•determined  in  1888  as  completely  as  anything  could  be.  But  if  it 
had  not  been,  the  board  under  Dr.  Thompson's  lead  has  now  deter- 
mined it.  Suppose  some  misguided  student  should  hereafter  desire 
to  attend  the  dangerous  lectures — as  two  of  the  present  students 
informed  us  eight  months  ago  they  did  desire  to  do — would  he  be 
allowed  to  attend?  He  could  attend  the  lectures  of  other  Univer- 
«ity  professors;  but  dare  he  attend  Professor  Woodrow's?  No,  says 
the  board ;  not  even  the  Seminary  faculty  may  give  permission  to  do 
so ;  "the  board  hereby  directs  the  faculty  to  refer  all  such  applicants 
to  the  presbyteries  under  whose  care  they  may  be,  and  govern  itself 
according  to  the  written  wishes  of  the  presbyteries."  If  the  student 
is  not  under  the  care  of  a  presbytery,  there  is  no  way  by  which  he 
can  obtain  a  dispensation  to  do  the  disapproved  thing.  If  he  is 
under  such  care,  then  he  must  apply  to  his  presbytery,  which  meets 
twice  a  year,  and  await  its  written  permission.  The  student  must 
be  terribly  in  earnest  who  will  attempt  to  overcome  such  barriers ; 
and  the  danger  must  be  terribly  great  against  which  the  board 
would  guard  him  by  interposing  such  barriers. 

The  followino'  a})])e;iro(l  on  Jinio  11>,  1890: 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Thompson's  Third  Reply. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Soutltern  Presbyterian:  From  some  cause 
your  paper  did  not  reach  me  until  late  on  Saturday,  and  I  avail  my- 
self of  this  the  earliest  possible  moment  on  Monday  morning  to 
return  an  answer.  Had  I  known  my  harmless  paper,  intended  and 
adopted  as  an  irenicon,  would  have  precipitated  upon  the  church  the 
numerous  articles  to  which  it  has  given  rise,  I  would  have  hesitated 
about  presenting  it.  The  discussion  has  not  been  without  benefit, 
however,  for  others,  it  appears,  have  shared  your  misapprehensions 


G22  :\rY  ltfe  axd  Tnri:s, 

as  to  what  has  been  done  l)y  the  board  in  tlie  past  touching  the 
so-called  "boycott,"  and  will  have,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  a  better  un- 
derstanding and  kindlier  judgment  of  a  body  of  public  servants 
v.ho  have  tried  to  meet  their  grave  responsibilities  in  the  fear  of 
(iod. 

To  begin  then,  this  much  has  been  made  certain  to  those  who  had 
received  a  different  impression,  that  but  one  case  has  ever  been 
before  the  faculty,  respecting  attendance  upon  Professor  Woodrow's 
lectures.  It  remains  to  be  shown,  that  '"circumstances"'  in  that  case, 
that  single  case,  had  to  do  with  the  decision  of  the  board  in  sustain- 
ing the  action  taken  by  the  faculty  therein. 

By  this  time  it  has  been  seen  that  my  memory  is  excellent,  and 
that  my  statements  have  not  been  wanting  in  "documentary  evi- 
dence;"' let  me  say  that  I  write  with  the  entire  history  of  the 
case  before  me,  in  the  otiicial  records  of  the  faculty.  The  case  is 
simply  this:  Mr.  Elwang,  of  New  Orleans  Presbytery,  had  been  at- 
tending Dr.  Woodrow's  lectures.  He  informed  one  of  the  professors 
that  he  had,  upon  grounds  of  expediency,  concluded  to  abstain  from 
further  attendance  upon  them ;  in  this  decision  the  members  of  the 
faculty  concurred  without  taking  formal  action  as  a  faculty. 

Soon  after,  a  letter  was  received  by  the  faculty  from  the  Corres- 
pondent of  Education  of  the  New  Orleans  Presbytery,  stating,  "I 
have  instructed  Mr.  Elwang  to  resume  immediately,  if  he  so  desires, 
his  attendance  upon  the  lectures  in  question  in  the  South  Carolina 
University'';  also  a  letter  from  ^Ir.  P^lwang  announcing  his  purpose 
"to  resume  attendance  upon  Dr.  Woodrow's  lectures,"  with  the 
avowed  design  of  forcing  upon  the  faculty  the  "square  issue"  of  its- 
formal  approval  or  disapproval. 

In  this  emergency  the  faculty  referred  the  case  to  the  presbytery, 
soliciting  an  "expression  of  its  judgment  in  regard  to  it,"  concluding^ 
its  communication  thus,  "While  we  have  no  disposition  to  lay  an  in- 
terdict upon  the  free  inquiries  of  students  in  any  sphere  of  investi- 
gation, we  are  impelled  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  raise  the  question  be- 
fore the  presbytery,  as  in  our  opinion  possessed  of  the  right  to  direct 
the  education  of  its  candidates,  whether  restrictions  are  not  legiti- 
mate in  this  peculiar  and  exceptional  instance."' 

A  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  the  presbytery  was  called,  and  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions  were  adopted  in  reply: 

"1.  We  sustain  the  administration  of  the  Seminary  in  the  matter 
referred  to  us,  and  enjoin  upon  our  candidate  to  respect  its 
authority. 

"2.  Presbytery  disclaims  any  responsibility  for  the  instructions 
given  by  our  Correspondent  of  Education.  They  were  given  without 
the  knowledge  or  consent  of  this  body,  and  entirely  fail  to  indicate 
the  views  or  wishes  of  presbytery." 


CONTKOVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  623 

Mr.  Ehvaiig  again  insisted  upon  a  formal  expression  of  the 
faculty's  "will  in  the  premises." 

Upon  this  the  faculty  passed  a  resolution  expressing  "its  judg- 
ment that  Mr.  Ehvang  should  abstain  from  attending  the  lectures  of 
Professor  Woodrow." 

Xow,  with  this  record  in  its  hands,  in  the  light  of  these  "circum- 
stances," namely,  that  Mr.  Ehvang  and  the  Correspondent  of  Edu- 
cation forced  the  issue;  that  the  faculty,  notwithstanding  its  con- 
victions, was  not  eager  to  act;  that  the  New  Orleans  Presbytery, 
whose  "right  it  is  to  direct  the  education  of  its  candidate,"  was 
asked  "if  restrictions  in  this  instance  are  not  legitimate";  that  the 
presbyteiy  said  in  substance,  "Yes,  the  instructions  of  our  Corres- 
pondent of  Education  do  not  indicate  our  wishes" ;  that  Mr.  Ehvang 
still  insisted  upon  a  formal  expression  of  the  faculty's  will — I  say 
it  was  in  view  of  these  "circumstances"  that  the  board  approved  of 
the  faculty's  inhibition. 

The  board  did  have  the  faculty's  "expository  minute"  spread  upon 
its  records,  but  did  not  necessarily  adopt  its  course  of  reasoning. 
In  church  courts,  at  times,  papers  are  engrossed  without  approval  or 
disapproval. 

Could  not  the  board  act  upon  the  facts  above  stated  entirely  apart 
from  tlie  argument  operating  with  the  faculty?  And  could  it  not, 
in  view  of  those  facts,  full}'  endorse  the  restriction  put  upon  Mr. 
Ehvang  without  endorsing  that  argument  ? 

Is  it  not  evident,  then,  that  Mr.  Elwang's  case  was  exceptional? 
I  disclaim  the  charge  of  renewing  agitation.  When  a  peace  measure 
is  offered,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  board  as  now  constituted 
adopted  it,  but  one  member  declining  to  vote,  he  who  attacks  it  is 
responsible  for  the  agitation  that  may  ensue.       W.  T.  Thompson. 

Editorial  Remarks. 
The  third  reply  of  the  Eev.  Dr.  W.  T.  Thompson  increases  the 
amazement  that  was  excited  by  his  resolution  adopted  by  the  board, 
and  that  has  been  growing  steadily  at  each  of  his  vain  attempts  to 
defend  that  "harmless  paper."  In  spite  of  repeated  demonstrations 
of  its  absolute  incorrectness  in  every  essential  particular,  he  sticks 
to  it.  In  spite  of  the  plainest  facts,  he  complacently  holds  to  his 
assumptions,  and  seems  even  to  hope  that  he  may  be  able  to  per- 
suade others  to  believe  likewise  in  the  reality  of  his  fairy  tale.  He 
sees  probable  benefit  in  the  discussion,  as  he  finds  that  our  "misap- 
prehensions, as  to  what  has  been  done  by  the  board  in  the  past 
touching  the  so-called  'boycott,'  "  are  shared  in  by  others.  This  is 
true,  except  that  our  opinions  on  this  point  are  not  misapprehen- 
sions, and  we  doubt  whether  any  one  except  Dr.  Thompson  would 
venture  so  stoutly  to  contradict  well-known  historical  facts. 


024:  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Be  it  remembered  that  Dr.  Thompson  is  tryinj;  to  prove  that  the 
"policy  of  the  Seminary"  has  not  been  determined  in  the  past  as  to 
students  attending  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures  in  the  South  Caro- 
lina Tniversity:  that,  in  short,  the  "boycott"  has  had  no  existence! 
Tlie  audacity  of  the  attempt  is  astounding,  and  to  refute  it  by 
hibored  aroument  is  as  useless  as  to  try  to  prove  the  existence  of 
the  sun  shining  in  the  heavens. 

But  we  must  examine  the  remarkable  argument  of  Dr.  Thompson. 
His  points  are  ( 1 )  that  "but  one  ease  has  ever  been  before  the  fac- 
ulty respecting  attendance  upon  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures;"' 
and  (2)  that  "'circumstances'  in  that  single  case  had  to  do  with 
the  decision  of  the  board  in  sustaining  the  action  taken  by  the 
faculty  therein." 

(1)  His  first  point  is  entirely  incorrect.  This  is  amply  shown 
by  the  following  quotations  from  the  Statement  of  the  Faculty  to 
the  Board,  published  May  24,  1888: 

"During  the  first  part  of  this  session  of  the  Seminary,  the  fac- 
ultj'  did  not  suppose  that,  in  view  of  the  action  of  the  bodies  con- 
trolling the  institution,  any  of  the  students  would  attend  Professor 
Woodrow's  lectures.  It  appears  that  during  that  time  a  few  of 
them  did  attend  those  lectures. 

"The  Rev.  Mr.  Blackburn,  a  former  student  of  the  Seminary,  and 
pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  city,  having  heard 
that  some  of  the  students  were  attending  Professor  Woodrow's  lec- 
tures, had  interviews  with  all  who  were  doing  so,  except  Mr.  Foster. 
and  endeavored  to  convince  them  of  the  inexpediency  of  that  course. 
They  acceded  to  the  representations  made  by  him  and  ceased  to 
attend. 

"This  communication  left  the  faculty  no  option.  Some  definite 
action  was  necessitated.  They  decided  to  refer  Mr.  Elwang's  case 
to  his  presbytery. 

"At  the  same  time  the  faculty  decided  lo  inquire  of  Mr.  Foster 
whetlier  lie  were  attending  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures,  and,  if 
such  should  prove  to  be  the  fact,  to  refer  his  case  to  the  Presbytery 
of  South  Alabama,  on  the  ground  that  no  discrimination  could  be 
inade  between  the  two  cases.  Professor  Girardeau,  in  accordance 
with  the  faculty's  request,  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Foster,  im- 
mediately after  the  determination  to  refer  Mr.  Elwang's  case  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Orleans,  and  inquired  of  him  whether  he  were 
attending  Professor  Woodrow's  lectures.  His  answer  was  in  the 
affirmative.  He  was  then  informed  that,  as  he  was  in  circumstances 
similar  to  those  of  Mr.  Elwang,  the  faculty  intended  to  refer  his 
case  to  his  presbytery.  .  .  .  He  was  told  that,  as  he  was  about 
to  leave  the  "institution,  it  was  not  at  all  likely  that  the  faculty 
would  refer  his  case  to  his  presbytery.    The  professor  reported  these 


CONTKOVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE,  625 

facts   to   the   faculty,   and   they   determined   to   di'op   Mr.   Foster's 
case." 

Its  incorrectness  is  further  shown  by  the  words  of  the  board  in 
their  action  in  1888,  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  this  board  has  heard  a  statement  of  facts  from  the 
faculty  touching  their  action  in  regard  to  Messrs.  W.  VV.  Elwang 
and  W.  C.  C.  Foster  attending'  the  lectures  of  Professor  James  ^^'ood- 
row  in  South  Carolina  University,  therefore, 

"Resolved,  1.  That  this  board  hereby  approve  of  the  faculty's 
action  in  the  cases  of  said  students. 

"Resolved,  2.  That  the  faculty's  statement  of  facts  be  spread  upon 
our  records. 

"Resolved,  3.  In  view  of  the  agitation  in  the  church  growing  out 
of  these  cases,  that  our  religious  papers  be  requested  to  publish  this 
statement." 

It  is  clear,  furthermore,  that  Mr.  Elwang's  "single  case"  was  a 
test  case.  It  settled  the  "policy  of  the  Seminary"  as  positively  as  a 
policy  could  be  settled.  It  was  so  regarded  by  all  concerned,  and  by 
the  church  at  large.  This  is  further  evidenced  by  the  history  of  the 
past  session.  Last  fall  two  Seminary  students  desired  to  attend 
Professor  Woodrow's  University  lectures,  one  of  them  having  form- 
ally obtained  his  permission  to  do  so.  But  they  were  frightened  off. 
They  could  not  stand  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  them  in 
consequence  of  the  notorious  "policy  of  the  Seminary."  The  moral 
backbone  necessary  to  resist  its  influence  was  more  than  could  be 
expected  of  these  young  men.  And  who  could  greatly  blame  their 
prudence?  Why  should  they  expose  themselves  to  the  vindictive- 
ness  of  those  high  in  authority?  They  had  doubtless  heard  of  min- 
isters being  made  to  suffer  for  just  such  refractoriness,  and  why 
should  they  subject  themselves  in  the  outset  of  their  career  to  the 
poisoned  shafts  that  have  been  hurled  at  others? 

(2)  Dr.  Thompson's  second  point  is  not  only  incorrect,  but,  even 
if  it  were  true,  it  does  not  touch  the  question.  The  declaration  of 
his  resolution  is  that  a  student  applied  to  the  faculty,  and  "the 
circumstances  of  the  application  were  such  that  the  faculty  de- 
clined to  grant  it,  and  the  board  sustained  the  faculty."  This  he 
supports  by  laboriously  trying  to  show  that  "  'circumstances'  in  that 
case  had  to  do  with  the  action  of  the  board  in  sustaining  the  fac- 
ulty." A  gross  ignoratio  elenchi!  For  he  declared  that  the  faculty 
had  acted  on  account  of  certain  circumstances,  and,  when  this  is 
shown  by  the  faculty's  own  words  to  be  incorrect,  he  blandly  pro- 
ceeds to  show  that  the  board  acted  on  these  circumstances,  repudi- 
ating the  faculty  altogether ! 

But  passing  this,  his  position  is  utterly  untenable. 

In  his  argument  he  repudiates  the  reasoning  of  the  faculty  upon 


626  MY  LIFE  A]N"D  TIMES. 

which  it  based  the  entire  "boycott."  The  most  startling  thing  in 
this  third  reply  of  Dr.  Thompson,  perhaps,  is  this  cool  repudiation, 
in  behalf  of  the  board,  of  the  faculty's  carefully  prepared  "exposi- 
tory minute."  Really,  this  is  too  unkind!  To  such  straits  has  Dr. 
Tliompson  been  driven  in  the  vain  attempt  to  show  that  the  state- 
ments made  in  the  recent  action  of  the  board  are  true.  The  facts 
are  against  him,  and  hence  he  calmly  repudiates  the  statement  of 
the  faculty  in  order  to  remove  the  inconsistency!  We  very  much 
fear  Dr.  Thompson  is  getting  deeper  and  deeper  in  the  mire.  He  is 
now,  if  possible,  more  hopelessly  involved  than  ever.  For,  with  the 
documentary  evidence  before  one,  it  is  impossible  to  consider  this 
late  repudiation  of  the  faculty's  statements  as  anything  else  than  an 
afterthought  now  made  to  bolster  up  an  indefensible  position. 

What  is  this  evidence? 

The  faculty  made  a  long  and  full  "statement"  to  the  board  in 
regard  to  the  "boycott,"  giving  its  history  at  length,  and  closing 
with  an  "expository  minute"  in  explanation  and  defence  of  their 
course.  The  board  thereupon  "Resolved,  1.  That  this  board  hereby 
approve  of  the  faculty's  action  in  the  cases  of  said  students.  2, 
That  the  faculty's  statement  of  facts  be  spread  upon  our  records. 
3.  In  view  of  the  agitation  in  the  church  growing  out  of  these  cases, 
that  our  religious  papers  be  reqviested  to  publish  this  statement." 

Can  any  one  believe  that  at  that  time  the  board  did  not  approve 
of  the  faculty's  reasons,  as  Dr.  Thompson  would  now  have  us  be- 
lieve? Tlie  board  not  only  spread  the  faculty's  statement  on  its  own 
records,  but  expressly  requested  all  our  religious  papers  to  publish 
it.  Tlie  board  thereby  endorsed  that  statement.  No  disapproval 
was  then  expressed,  none  was  felt,  and  it  is  worse  than  idle  to  say 
now  that  the  action  of  the  faculty  may  have  been  sustained  on 
grounds  other  than  those  assigned  by  the  faculty.  When  this  is  done 
by  a  superior  court,  it  is  always  expressly  so  stated  in  the  opinion 
of  the  court. 

But  suppose  that  the  Board  did  repudiate  tlic  faculty's  reasoning 
— and  that  this  has  been  most  carefully  concealed  all  these  years, 
(lining  all  the  debates  on  the  "boycott"  in  the  Synods  and  else- 
where— then  the  board  had  no  ground  to  stand  upon.  True,  Dr. 
Thompson  gives  an  array  of  "circumstances"  in  view  of  which  he 
says  "the  board  approved  of  the  faculty's  inhibition."  These  "cir- 
cumstances" amount  to  this,  that  the  faculty  were  not  eager  to  act 
according  to  their  convictions,  but  were  forced  to  do  so,  and  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Orleans  told  them  that,  in  its  opinion,  "restric- 
tions in  this  instance  are  legitimate"!  Was  there  ever  a  frailer 
basis  assigned  by  a  friend  for  the  deliberate  action  of  a  board? 

As  to  the  closing  paragrapli,  wo  cannot  believe  that  the  board 
carefully  and   fully  considered  its  action   in  adopting  this  "peace- 


CONTROVKKSIES   OF   SCIEISTCE.  627 

measure."  We  cannot  believe  that  it  expresses  the  convictions  of  all 
the  members.  We  must  believe  that  it  was  pushed  through  hur- 
riedly and  without  sufficient  examination  of  its  true  character, 
under  the  whip  and  spur  of  the  majority.  We  cannot  even  believe 
that  that  majority  would  endorse  Dr.  Thompson's  strange  defence  of 
his  resolution. 


Reviewing  all  the  facts,  there  remains  the  painful  conviction  that 
this  recent  act  of  the  board  is  a  pitiful  attempt  to  "crawfish"  out 
of  a  false  position,  without  confession  of  wrong-doing.  In  the 
avowed  interests  of  peace,  liistory  is  perverted.  The  fact  of  the 
existence  of  the  "boycott"  has  been  notorious — it  has  been  openly 
and  boldly  attacked,  and  as  openly  and  boldly  defended,  in  pres- 
byteries, synods,  and  the  public  press.  And  now  the  board,  under 
Dr.  Thompson's  leadership,  says  it  is  all  a  "misconstruction" — there 
has  been  no  "boycott"  at  all !  Students  have  not  been  forbidden  to 
attend  these  University  lectures!  There  was  only  one  single  case, 
peculiar  to  itself!  And  in  defending  this  inconceivably  strange 
position,  Dr.  Thompson  repudiates  for  the  board  the  careful  reason- 
ing of  the  faculty  on  which  alone  tlie  "boycott"  can  be  logically  de- 
fended. Surely,  it  is  a  pitiable  spectacle.  The  faculty  has  been 
sorely  wounded  in  the  house  of  its  friends. 

How  much  better  would  it  have  been  for  the  board  to  have 
squarely  annulled  this  "boycott,"  which  has  been  rightfully  de- 
nounced as  infamous,  rather  than  to  seek  vainly  to  escape  the 
odium  it  has  brought  upon  its  instigators,  by  denying  its  existence 
in  the  face  of  the  knowledge  of  the  world  to  the  contrary ! 

The  following  appeared  on  the  26tli  of  June,  1890 : 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Thompson's  Fourth  Reply. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Hoiitlicrn  Presbyterian:  In  my  correspon- 
dence so  far,  I  have  not  employed  one  intemperate  word,  nor  a  single 
phrase  that  could  be  called  discourteous;  on  the  contrary,  I  have 
calmly  dealt  with  facts,  which  have  demonstrated  conclusively  that 
but  one  case  has  ever  been  before  the  faculty,  and  that  the  "circum- 
stances" of  that  case,  as  I  stated  at  the  Greenwood  Synod,  led  the 
board  to  approve  of  the  action  of  the  faculty. 

Various  expressions  in  your  last  editorial  show  that  your  feelings 
have  betrayed  you  into  such  an  entire  forgetfulness  of  what  is  be- 
coming in  a  discussion  between  gentlemen,  as  to  forfeit  your  right 
to  further  notice  from  myself,  even  had  there  been  any  need  to 
answer  an  article,  which,  to  every  one  who  has  read  the  correspon- 
dence, must  have  answered  itself.  W.  T.  Thompson. 

June  21,  1890. 


C2S  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 


Editorial  Remarks. 


It  sometimes  happens,  during  a  discussion,  that  the  statements 
made  by  one  party  are  without  foundation,  that  his  reasoning  is 
unsound  and  illogical,  and  that  his  conclusions,  therefore,  are  wholly 
wrong.  When  this  state  of  things  has  been  clearly  pointed  out,  the 
unfortunate  disputant  is  at  a  loss  to  know  what  to  do;  he  can  no 
longer  maintain  his  indefensible  position  except  by  disproved  reitera- 
tions: he  does  not  like  to  confess  his  errors;  the  only  thing  that 
seems  to  be  left  is  to  become  angry,  and  to  abuse  whoever  may  have 
pointed  out  his  mistakes.  This  appears  now  to  be  Dr.  Thompson's 
unhappy  plight.  We  are  not  going  to  praise  him  on  account  of  his 
personal  abuse;  but  we  wish  to  state  the  palliating  circumstances 
attending  his  conduct,  and  to  beg  that  he  be  not  too  severely  con- 
demned for  it.  His  mistakes  as  to  fact  and  the  unwisdom  of  the 
course  which  he  led  the  board  to  adopt  having  been  so  plainly  set 
forth,  it  was  natural  that  he  should  be  irritated.  But.  of  course,  we 
are  not  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  he  should  not  have  exercised 
self-restraint. 

This  fourth  reply  has  no  right  to  a  place  in  our  columns,  but  we 
publish  it  as  showing  the  best  that  he  can  do  in  the  straits  into 
which  he  is  driven.  We  do  not  intend  to  answer  his  personalities 
in  this  reply  any  more  than  we  have  done  in  those  in  which  he  in- 
dulged in  his  previous  replies.  From  the  first  he  has  charged  those 
opposed  to  his  views  with  intemperate  language,  and  with  being 
■"bent  upon  agitation,"  "unwarranted  and  hui'tful  agitation,"  with 
objectionable  "spirit,"  etc.;  but  no  progress  towards  the  truth  can 
be  made  by  discussing  these  charges ;  and  as  the  truth  alone  is  what 
we  seek,  we  decline  discussing  them. 

Meanwhile  the  utterance  of  the  Seminary  Board  of  Directors 
stands,  setting  forth  more  or  less  distinctly,  among  other  things: 

1.  That  there  never  was  any  "boycott"  against  Professor  Wood- 
row's  University  lectures;  that  it  is  all  a  mistake  to  think  there 
was. 

2.  Tliat  one  student  was  forbidden  to  attend  these  lectures,  and 
that  the  directors  never  intended  to  approve  of  anything  more.  If 
the  faculty  did,  why,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  faculty;  and  its 
views  (after  approval  by  the  board  in  1888),  are  now  cruelly  repu- 
diated by  the  leader  of  the  board. 

3.  That,  the  board  having  denied  tlie  previous  existence  of  the 
"boj'cott,"  it  now  institutes  it,  and  ordains  that  the  only  escape 
from  its  operation  is  through  written  ])ermission  from  presby- 
teries— the  faculty  being  entirely  slri])ped  of  all  authority  in  tlie 
matter. 

4.  That,  as  explained  by  tlie  author  of  tlie  paper,  all  this  has 
been  done  in  the  interests  of  "peace" — as  an  "irenicon." 


CONTKOVEKSIES  OF  SCIEISTCB.  629 

If  this  is  to  promote  "peace,"  we  wonder  what  would  have  been 
done  if  the  intention  had  been  to  provoke  war! 

A  Card. 

Mr.  Editor:  The  statement  has  been  twice  made  in  your  paper  to 
the  effect  that  the  recent  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Col- 
umbia Theological  Seminary  respecting  the  '"boycott"  was  unani- 
mously adopted,  except  that  one  member  declined  to  vote.  The  un- 
dersigned is  no  doubt  the  member  referred  to  as  declining  to  vote. 
Such  a  representation  does  not  do  me  full  justice.  Twice  or  three 
times  before  the  vote  was  taken  I  tried  to  show  that  the  paper  pro- 
posed was  objectionable,  and  would  not  accomplish  the  end  in  view. 
I  asked  that  it  be  not  hurriedly  pressed  to  a  vote,  but  that  time  be 
allowed  for  reflection  and  for  conference. 

INIy  desire  was  to  have  it  laid  over  until  the  next  day.  It  was  a 
complete  surprise  to  some  of  us — we  expected  no  such  "olive-branch" 
• — we  were  not  prepared  for  it,  and  so  I  insisted  that  time  be 
allowed  for  conference.  Another  member  of  the  board  proposed 
privately  to  the  author  of  the  paper  that  it  be  referred  to  a  special 
committee.  But  others  thought  differently,  and  soon  the  vote  was 
taken  and  the  paper  adopted. 

When  it  became  evident  that  the  paper  would  be  adopted,  it  then 
occurred  to  me,  that  perhaps  the  next  best  thing  to  do  would  be, 
without  farther  opposition,  to  let  those  most  interested  in  the  paper 
make  their  own  explanation  of  their  own  former  action.  And  so  I 
voted  neither  for  nor  against  it. 

But  upon  farther  reflection,  I  became  convinced  that  I  had  made  a 
mistake — that  I  would  be  counted  as  approving  of  the  action,  and 
as  voting  for  it.  Therefore,  the  next  day,  before  a  full  meeting  of 
the  board,  I  stated  again  some  of  my  objections  to  the  paper 
adopted,  and  said  distinctly  that  I  did  not  wish  to  be  regarded  as 
either  approving  or  voting  for  it.  The  very  object  which  I  had  in 
view  in  thus  again  referring  to  the  matter  was  that  I  might  be 
known  and  counted,  not  merely  as  declining  to  vote,  but  as  being 
decidedly  opposed  to  the  action,  and  as  voting  against  it.  Inas- 
much as  a  yea  and  nay  vote  was  not  taken,  I  did  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  have  my  vote  recorded.  But  had  such  a  vote  been 
taken,  I  would  most  certainly  have  asked  to  be  recorded  in  the 
negative.    I  am  sorry  that  I  failed  to  make  myself  fully  understood. 

If  the  English  language  can  ever  be  interpreted  with  any  degree 
of  confidence  as  to  its  true  meaning,  it  seems  to  me  beyond  the  pos- 
siliility  of  a  doubt  that  the  action  of  the  faculty  and  of  tlie  board 
of  1888  did  determine  the  policy  of  the  Seminary;  and  I  fail 
utterly  to  see  how  it  was  not  so  intended.  Twice  or  three  times,  I 
urged  that  it  was  wrong  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  presbyteries.     If 


().30  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  "boycott"  was  riglit,  the  board  ought  to  have  insisted  on  its 
continuance.  If  it  was  wrong,  the  board  ought  to  have  removed  it. 
If  it  never  existed,  the  board  certainly  made  a  great  mistake  in  not 
assuring  the  controlling  Synods  of  the  fact  long,  long  ago.  It  would 
have  saved  a  great  deal  of  time,  and  a  great  deal  of  hard  feeling.  It 
is  hard  to  conceive  why  information  so  important  was  withheld  for 
two  years.  If  the  "boycott"  has  never  existed  as  is  now  alleged — if 
Mr.  El  Wang's  case  was  exceptional,  and  was  so  meant — where  is 
either  the  sense  or  propriety  of  taking  tlie  matter  up  after  two 
years,  and  referring  the  cases  of  all  other  students,  who  may  desire 
to  attend  said  lectures,  to  their  respective  presbyteries?  It  is  vir- 
tually saying  to  them,  "You  never  have  been  prohibited;  but,  inas- 
much as  some  thick-headed  ministers  and  elders  have  thought  that 
you  were,  and  have  circulated  erroneous  statements  to  that  eflfeet, 
therefore,  we,  the  Board  of  Directors,  sitting  in  solemn  assembly,  do 
enact  that  henceforth  not  one  of  you  shall  attend  without  a  written 
permit  from  your  respective  presbyteries.  Hitherto  you  have  been 
at  perfect  liberty  to  do  as  you  were  pleased  about  the  matter,  but 
henceforth  you  must  have  a  written  permit." 

Is  it  not  evident  that  there  is  inconsistency  somewhere? 

W.  W.  Mills. 

The  following,  from  a  well-known  and  much-honored 
minister  of  the  South  Carolina  Synod,  lately  deceased, 
shall  close  my  history  of  this  hoycott : 

The  conclusion  we  have  reached  is  that  the  board  not  only  has  not 
removed  the  boycott,  but  has  reaffirmed  it.  We  are  sorry  the  board 
did  not  wipe  out  this  cause  of  dissatisfaction  and  irritation,  for  it 
is  certain  that  until  this  is  fairly  and  squarely  done,  the  Seminary 
will  not  regain  its  former  place  in  the  affections  of  our  people. 

Newbcrri/,  8.  C,  May  21,  1890.  J.  S.  Cozby. 

3.  Rejected  by  Cilvrleston  Presbytery. 

In  the  Southern  Preshyter'tan  of  October  16,  1890,  a])- 
pears  the  following  paragraph  : 

Charleston  Presbytery. 
Charleston  Presbytery  met  at  Allendale  last  week.  During  the 
meeting,  it  considered  the  letter  of  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  dis- 
missing the  Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow  to  Charleston  Presbytery.  The  "ex- 
amination" on  experimental  religion,  theology,  and  church  govern- 
ment, consisted  of  a  series  of  statements  and  questions  read  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Webb,  which  he  said  he  had  been,  six  months  ago,  requested 
by  a  number  of  his  fellow-presbyters  to  prepare.     A  large  number 


COXTROVERSIIOS  OF  SCIENCE.  631 

of  the  questions  were  objected  to  by  tlie  Eev.  Professor  Flinn,  but  in 
every  instance  the  Moderator  promptly  decided  that  they  were  con- 
stitutional and  proper. 

At  the  close  of  this  "examination,"  Dr.  Webb  presented  a  paper 
setting  forth  the  decision  of  the  presbytery.  The  body  did  not  v^en- 
ture  to  subject  this  paper  to  the  light  of  discussion,  but  required 
that  it  be  voted  on  at  once,  in  accordance  with  a  resolution  offered 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thompson. 

The  following'  is  taken  from  the  C^iarleston  News  and 
Courier  of  October  11,  1890: 

The  usual  examination,  to  which  applicants  are  subjected,  fol- 
lowed the  presentation  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  letter.  This  was  conducted 
wholly  in  writing,  and  much  time  was  devoted  to  a  calm,  deliberate 
inquisition  as  to  the  applicant's  doctrinal  beliefs,  etc.  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  present,  and  conducted  his  own  side  of  the  case  with  his  well- 
known  ability  and  vigor. 

The  following  aeconnt  is  from  the  Southern  Preshy- 
ierian  of  October  23,  1890: 

Dr.  Woodrow's  Examixatiox. 

Questions  by  the  Rev.  R.  A.  Webb,  D.  D. 

Experimental  Religion. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  presbytery  the  evidence  of  conversion 
which  satisfies  your  own  mind?  A.  The  evidence  is  my  conviction 
that  I  have  accepted  the  terms  on  which  salvation  is  offered  in  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  viz.,  that  I  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
have  repented  of  sin. 

Q.  State  to  the  presbytery  the  evidence  of  growth  in  grace  which 
comforts  you  most.  A.  My  chief  and  highest  comfort  is  that  I  am 
conscious  of  growth  in    love  to  Jesus  Christ  my  Saviour. 

Q.  It  is  currently  reported  that  your  life  is  almost  wholly  secular- 
ized; that  you  are  the  proprietor  of  a  job  printing  office,  professor 
in  the  South  Carolina  University,  president  of  the  Central  National 
Bank  of  Columbia,  president  of  the  Home  Insurance  Company,  direc- 
tor in  the  C,  N.  &  L.  R.  R.  Co.,  vice-president  of  the  Columbia  Land 
and  Investment  Company,  vice-president  of  a  Building  and  Loan 
Association,  director  of  the  Piedmont  Land  and  Improvement  Com- 
pany, director  of  the  Congaree  Lumber  or  Furniture  Company,  pres- 
ident of  the  Carolina  Loan  and  Investment  Company.  How  do  you 
reconcile  this  state  of  things  with  your  ministerial  vows  and  voca- 
tion? A.  The  enumeration  is  in  the  main  correct.  I  am  professor  in 
the  University  of  South  Carolina,  president  of  the  Central  Bank  of 


G32  MY  LIFE  AND  Ti:^rES. 

Columbia,  president  of  the  Soutli  Caroliiui  Home  Insurance  Com- 
pany, president  of  the  Carolina  Loan  and  Investment  Company, 
vice-president  of  the  Congaree  Lumber  and  Furniture  Company, 
vice-president  of  a  Building  and  Loan  Company,  vice-pi'esident  of 
the  Columbia  Land  and  Improvement  Company,  director  in  the  C, 
N.  &  L.  R.  R.  Co.  I  am  also  director  in  the  C,  C.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.;  I 
am  also  a  director  of  the  Columbia  Phosphate  Company;  I  am  not 
a  director  of  the  Piedmont  Land  and  Improvement  Company,  nor  am 
I  the  proprietor  of  a  job  printing  office.  But  I  am  editor  of  the 
Southern  Presbyterian.  I  reconcile  this  state  of  things  with  my 
ministerial  vows  and  vocation  by  the  fact  that  I  am  making  full 
l^roof  of  my  ministry  by  disseminating  the  gospel  for  the  edification 
of  the  church  through  the  press :  that  I  am  debarred  from  preaching 
in  the  many  pulpits  to  which  I  am  constantly  invited  by  the  con- 
dition of  my  tliroat,  under  the  advice  of  a  physician;  and  from 
teaching  in  a  theological  seminary  by  the  action  of  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina  and  three  other  Synods.  I  give  no  time  to  secular 
employment  until  I  have  done  all  in  my  power  to  disseminate  the 
gospel  through  the  Southern  Preshyterian. 

Q.  How  is  it  that  the  condition  of  your  tliroat  does  not  prevent 
your  lecturing  in  the  L'niversity,  while  it  prevents  you  almost 
wholly  from  preaching  in  the  pulpits  of  our  churches?  A.  Without 
considering  how  far  the  members  of  this  presbytery  need  to  be  in- 
formed on  the  subject,  I  answer  that  lecturing  on  scientific  subjects 
to  twenty-five  or  thirty-five  students  in  a  small  room,  requires  only 
a  conversational  tone,  while  all  know  that  such  an  amount  of  voice 
is  not  at  all  adequate  in  preaching. 

Q.  In  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  November  8,  1888,  you  three 
times  publish  tliis  presbytery  as  the  "Charleston  Inquisition,"  once  as 
the  "Venerable  Inquisition,"  and  its  decisions  as  "Papal  Pronuncia- 
mentos."  In  the  issue  of  November  29,  1888,  you  publish  an  article 
under  the  title  of  "More  Work  for  the  Inquisition";  the  "Venerable 
Inquisition,"  and  its  decisions  as  papal  pronunciamentos,  "Inquisi- 
torial Imprecations."  In  the  issue  of  December  20,  1888,  you  pub- 
lish tlie  following  language,  "I  am  almost  afraid  to  read  the  news 
for  fear  I  shall  see  the  startling  head-lines:  A.  R.  K.  Burned  by 
order  of  His  Holiness  the  Pope,  in  the  Holy  City,  at  Columbia,  Seat 
of  the  Papal  Dominions,  and  Rendezvous  of  His  Minions."  And 
again  this  presbytery  is  called  "the  venerable  Inquisition."  Will 
you  disavow  these  offensive  epithets?  A.  I  do  not  remember  the 
aboA'e  quotations  from  the  Southern  Presbyterian  in  their  connec- 
tion, so  that  I  can  neither  reiterate  nor  disavow  them.  But  I  may 
add  that,  so  far  as  anything  that  I  have  ever  published  in  the 
Southern  Presbyterian  is  concerned,  I  am  prepared  to  show  before 
any  tribunal  where  I  may  be  charged  with  having  committed  an 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  633 

oifence  in  such  publication,  that  such  publication  was  right  and 
proper,  and  not  an  oflence.  But,  of  course,  this  cannot  be  done 
where  there  is  no  opportunity  of  showing  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
quotations  by  pointing  out  their  connection  with  other  parts  of  the 
articles  in  which  they  appear,  and  their  relation  to  current  events. 

Q.  In  an  editorial,  June  G,  1889,  you  published  this  language,  "We 
have  a  supreme  contempt  for  such  popish  orders  as  the  interdict. 
.  .  .  Our  feeling  is  reinforced  by  an  honest  indignation  that  a 
presbytery  of  our  church  should  be  so  misled  as  to  attempt  such  an 
iniquity.  .  .  .  We  are  not  to  be  turned  from  this  path  by  the 
rumbling  thunder  of  any  petty  inquisition."  In  an  editorial,  Octo- 
ber 11,  1888,  you  say,  "This  is  not  the  first  time  that  authority  has 
been  unlawfully  assumed  in  attempts  to  Idi'd  it  over  God's  heritage; 
but  we  shall  be  greatly  surprised  if  it  is  not  found  that  the  senti- 
ment still  burns  brightly  in  every  true  Presbyterian  breast,  'Re- 
sistance to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God.'  "  In  an  editorial,  March 
21,  1889,  you  characterize  a  resolution  of  this  oody  as  the  "presby- 
tery's horrible  decree."  Will  you  retract  this  offensive  language? 
A.  Without  considering  whether  or  not  I  am  now  called  upon  to 
defend  what  was  done  more  than  a  year  ago,  I  give  the  same  answer 
to  this  question  as  to  the  last. 

Q.  In  1888,  when  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  met  at  Greenwood, 
it  directed  this  presbytery  to  meet  and  correct  a  certain  minute.  In 
commenting  upon  this  correction,  you  say  in  an  editorial,  March  21, 
1889,  "Whether  this  action  of  the  presbytery  constitutes  obedience 
to  Synod,  and  whether  the  members  of  presbytery  sincerely  believe 
that  it  does,  are  questions  we  do  not  propose  to  discuss.  No  doubt 
the  Synod  will  consider  the  first  next  fall.  The  consciences  of  the 
members  of  presbytery  who  voted  for  the  two  resolutions  in  a  court 
of  the  Lord  .Jesus  Christ — 1,  That  we  will  obey;  2,  That  we  regard 
what  we  are  doing  as  obedience  to  what  we  sincerely  believe  to  be 
the  meaning  of  Synod's  order — the  consciences  of  these  members  are 
deciding,  or  will  hereafter  decide,  this  second  question  in  the  sight 
of  the  Lord  of  the  conscience."  In  an  editorial  of  April  25,  1889, 
in  commenting  upon  a  report  of  the  proceedings  of  this  presbytery 
published  in  the  Charleston  World,  which  this  body  had  declared 
"incorrect,  partial  and  misleading,"  you  say,  "In  view  of  the  recent 
history  of  Charleston  Presbytery,  a  very  strong  reason  for  believing 
in  the  correctness  of  the  World's  report,  to  many  minds,  might  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  presbytery  adopted  a  resolution  condemn- 
ing it."  Will  you  retract  these  reflections  upon  this  presbytery's 
sincerity  and  veracity?  A.  1  give  to  this  question  the  same  answer 
as  to  the  last. 

Q.  In  1888,  at  its  regular  meeting  at  Aiken,  S.  C,  this  presbytery 
spread  the  following  upon  its  minutes,  "Presbytery  hereby  informs 


634  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

its  ministers,  ruling  elders,  and  deacons,  that  the  General  Assembly 
has  judicially  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  declar- 
ing that  'The  belief  of  .  .  .  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  body  of  Adam,  was  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as 
interpreted  in  the  standards  of  the  church;  and  that,  therefore,  this 
presbytery  regards  the  holding  of  said  form  of  evolution  as  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards  of  the 
church,  and  forbids  the  public  contending  against  the  decision  of 
of  the  Assembly."  Under  an  order  of  the  Synod,  the  presbytery  in- 
serted into  this  resolution  the  words,  "except  in  a  constitutional 
manner."  The  General  Assembly  at  Chattanooga  in  1889,  by  a 
vote  of  104  to  36,  sustained  this  action.  Will  you  submit  to  this 
resolution  and  obey  the  same?  A.  If  this  question  means,  will  I 
obey  any  resolution  forbidding  the  doing  of  anything  whatever  ex- 
cept in  a  constitutional  manner,  I  unhesitatingly  say  that  I  will 
never  in  the  future  do  anything  except  in  a  constitutional  manner. 
as  I  have  always  endeavored  not  to  do  in  the  past. 

Q.  Why  have  you  so  strenuously  contended  against  this  resolution, 
and  so  severely  criticised  this  presbytery  for  its  passage?  A.  I  do 
not  remember  that  I  have  objected  to  the  resolution  when  proper 
emphasis  has  been  laid  on  the  clause,  "Except  in  a  constitutional 
manner."  My  criticism  of  the  resolution  in  other  respects  I  am 
ready  to  explain  and  defend  whenever  suitable  opportunity  is  given. 
The  columns  of  the  Southern  Presbi/tcrian  will  show  fully  my 
reasons. 

Q.  In  an  editorial,  June  G,  1889,  after  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly 
at  Chattanooga,  concerning  this  presbytery,  you  used  the  following 
language,  "But  many  of  whose  acts,  by  the  rest  of  mankind,  in- 
cluding ourselves,  are  regarded  with  very  mixed  feelings,  in  which 
neither  respect  nor  admiration  is  specially  prominent."  Are  there 
any  of  the  acts  of  this  body  devoid  of  your  respect,  and  regarded 
by  you  as  here  described?  A.  I  cannot  recall  all  the  acts  of  this 
presbytery  with  sufficient  definiteness  to  enable  me  to  answer  this 
question.  But  if  the  presbytery's  acts  are  repeated  to  me,  I  will,  if 
the  presbytery  desire,  give  my  opinion  of  each  as  far  as  possible. 

Q.  After  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  at  Chattanooga, 
after  the  words,  "Except  in  a  constitutional  manner,"  had  been  in- 
troduced into  the  resolution  characterized  by  you  as  the  "Aiken 
interdict,"  commenting  upon  that  very  resolution,  June  6,  1889.  you 
use  this  language,  "We  are  not  to  be  turned  from  this  path  by  the 
rumbling  thunder  of  any  petty  inquisition,  more  especially  when 
one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Presbyterian  faith— liberty 
in  the  Lord — is  attempted  to  be  destroyed.  We  will  not,  dare  not, 
hold  our  peace."  Do  you  adhere  to  this  purpose  concerning  this 
resolution?    A.  The  language  quoted  above  can  have  no  reference  to 


CONTKOVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE.  635 

the  whole  resolution,  including  the  added  exception;  as,  with  the 
exception,  the  resolution  restrains  no  rightful  liberty.  With  regard 
to  any  attempt  to  restrain  the  liberty  rightly  enjoyed  by  one  of  the 
Lord's  freemen,  I  adhere,  with  all  my  heart,  to  the  purpose  ex- 
pressed in  my  words  as  quoted. 

Theology. 

Q.  Do  you  hold  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  the  same  sense  now  that 
jou  did  when  you  subscribed  it?  A.  I  hold  the  Confession  of  Faith 
now  in  exactly  the  same  sense  that  I  did  when  I  subscribed  it,  viz., 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  set  forth  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. 

Q.  Is  there  any  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  any  individual 
statement  or  doctrine  of  it,  to  which  you  except?  If  any,  what?  A. 
In  the  chapter  on  Creation  (IV.)  Par.  I,  I  except  to  the  statement 
that  "it  pleased  God  in  the  beginning  to  create  or  make  of  nothing 
the  world,  and  all  things  therein  ...  in  the  space  of  six  days" — 
if  this  statement  means  that  this  world  was  made  of  nothing  in  six 
<iays  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  In  the  Confession  proper,  I  know 
of  nothing  else  to  which  I  except.  And  I  believe  that  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  intended  to  teach  the  doctrine  to  which  I  object. 

Q.  Do  you  still  hold  the  views  on  the  subject  of  evolution  which 
you  have  published?  A.  I  hold  firmly  to  all  the  views  on  evolution 
which  I  have  published  in  the  last  six  and  a  half  years.  All  my 
studies  during  that  time  have  convinced  me  more  and  more  of  their 
probable  truth. 

Q.  Do  you  claim  the  right  to  advocate  these  views  as  you  may 
have  occasion?  A.  I  claim  the  right  to  advocate  these  views  as  I 
may  have  occasion.  The  occasion  seldom  arises  among  students  of 
natural  history,  as  the  truth  of  evolution,  with  certain  limitations, 
amongst  them  is  almost  universally  taken  for  granted  as  established. 
If  the  occasion  should  arise,  I  shall  exercise  it — subject,  of  course, 
to  the  rightful  authority  of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  under 
which  I  may  be. 

Church  Government. 

Q.  In  the  Huntsville  Assembly,  1871,  while  defending  yourself 
against  the  accusations  of  Mr.  Cater,  you  said,  "The  voice  of  this 
Assembly  is  to  me  the  voice  of  God."  Was  the  voice  of  the  Assem- 
blies of  Augusta  and  Baltimore,  the  one  making  a  deliverance  in 
thesi,  and  the  other  a  judicial  decision  against  your  views  of  evolu- 
tion, the  voice  of  God  to  you?  A.  The  statement  that  the  voice  of 
the  General  Assembly,  or  other  church  court,  is  to  me  the  voice  of 
God  expresses  my  view  to-night  as  in  1871,  when  understood  and 
interpreted  according  to  the  in  thesi  deliverance  of  the  General  As- 
seml)ly  in  1880  on  this  subject.     I  do  not  regard  the  General  Assem- 


630  MY  LIFE  A'SD  TI.MKS. 

bly,  or  other  cliurch  court,  as  infallible.  I  believe  that  the  General 
Assembly  of  18S()  (Augusta)  erred  in  some  respects  regarding  evo- 
lution, and  that  the  judicial  decision  of  the  General  Assembly  in 
1888  (Baltimore)  contained  contradictory  statements.  Therefore, 
having  exercised  the  right  set  forth  in  1880,  I  do  not  regard  the  in 
thesi  deliverance  of  188(5,  and  the  judicial  decision  of  1888,  as  the 
voice  of  God ;  while  I  have  submitted  in  all  respects  to  all  that 
seemed  to  me  to  be  commanded  by  the  Baltimore  General  Assembly's 
judicial  decision  by  calling  the  attention  of  the  Presbytery  of  Au- 
gusta to  it,  and  requesting  them  to  apply  it  in  any  way  they  might 
think  proper. 

Questions  by  the  Rev.  J.  William  Flinn: 

Q.  Without  reference  to  the  admissibility  of  Mr.  Webb's  third 
question  concerning  your  occupations,  how  much  of  your  time  is 
engaged  in  the  secular  pursuits  there  enumerated?  A.  It  would  be 
hard  for  me  to  say  exactly.  One  railway  directorship  has  occupied 
me  about  an  hour  within  the  last  year;  another,  two  or  three  hours; 
all  the  other  directorships,  vice-presidencies  and  presidencies,  ex- 
cept that  of  the  Central  Bank,  from  three  to  eight,  or  ten  hours  each 
per  annum.  At  the  bank  I  spend  most  of  my  hours  in  the  morning, 
except  when  at  the  University — using  my  room  there  as  my  study. 
My  bank  work  is  not  clerical  or  mechanical,  and  requires  time  only 
to  decide  matters  submitted  to  me — sometimes,  perhaps  in  all,  two 
hours  a  day,  sometimes  fifteen  minutes ;  the  rest  of  the  time  at 
the  bank  I  spend  in  editing  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  studying 
scientific  and  other  works  with  reference  to  my  University  work,  etc. 
I  lecture  and  hold  recitations  at  the  college  one  or  two  hours  a 
day  for  nine  months.  The  rest  of  my  time — which  contains  more 
hours  than  most  professional  men  devote  to  all  their  work — I  give 
to  editing  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  with  the  mechanical  depart- 
ment of  which  I  have  nothing  to  do.  I  have  recently  spent  two  or 
three  weeks  in  travelling  in  the  North.  I  do  not  think  all  my  direc- 
torships, etc.,  enumerated,  with  the  two  exceptions  noted,  occupy 
more  working  hours  during  the  year  than  were  consumed  in  this 
journey. 

Q.  When  engaged  in  these  jiursuits  into  which  Providence  has  led 
you,  do  you  strive,  by  your  example  and  your  influence,  to  recom- 
mend the  Christian  faith  and  life  to  those  with  whom  you  come  in 
contact?    A.  I  so  strive. 

Q.  Were  you  elected  to  these  various  positions?     A.  Ves. 

Q.  What  do  the  people  of  your  community  think  of  known  Chris- 
tian fidelity  of  character  and  uprightness  of  life  as  one  of  the  quali- 
fications for  such  offices  iis  you  hold?  A.  I  do  not  know.  Integrity, 
business  ability,  and  the  like,  are  looked  for;  but  I  cannot  say  that 
Christianity,  as  such,  enters  into  the  case. 


CONTROVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  637 

Q.  Have  you  reason  to  believe  that  God  has  blessed  your  Christian 
teaching  and  example  in  your  home  by  making  your  children's  lives 
consecrated  to  Christ?  A.  All  I  am  willing  to  say  in  reply  to  this 
question  is  tliat  I  earnestly  thank  God  for  having  blessed  me  in  this 
particular.  As  to  what  my  children  are,  and  how  tliey  became  so,  I 
must  leave  it  to  others  to  express  an  opinion. 

Q.  As  professor  in  the  South  Carolina  University,  do  you,  as  far 
as  practicable,  take  pastoral  oversight  of  those  committed  to  your 
charge?  Are  you  diligent  in  sowing  the  seed  of  the  Word,  and  gath- 
ering the  fruit  thereof  as  one  who  watches  for  souls?  And  have  you 
reason  for  believing  that  God  blesses  your  work?  a.  As  teacher  in 
the  University.  I  do  all  in  my  power  to  sow  the  seed  of  the  Word  as 
one  who  watches  for  souls.  I  take  and  make  opportunity  in  my 
class-room  to  urge  belief  in  the  word  of  God  as  of  infinitely  higher 
importance  than  anything  else;  to  teach  that  the  Bible  is  true  in 
every  particular ;  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  in  science 
for  declining  to  accept  it  as  wholly  true;  that,  while  the  laws  by 
which  God  governs  his  physical  vmiverse  are  uniform,  they  are  not 
so  in  such  sense  as  to  lead  to  disbelief  in  miracles ;  and  as  to  sim- 
ilar matters,  as  far  as  practicable.  As  to  fruit,  I  may  not  speak 
fully,  but  may  say  I  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  not  a  few  of 
my  pupils  have  been  strengthened  in  their  belief  in  the  Bible  by 
my  teachings,  and  that  from  the  minds  of  others,  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  believing  have  been  removed.  I  may  perhaps  be  pardoned 
for  adding  that  I  have  been  told  by  the  youth  himself,  and  his  now 
bereaved  mother,  that  it  was  my  class-room  teachings  and  private 
counsels  which  were  largely  instrumental  in  leading  one  of  my  re- 
cent pupils  to  accept  and  love  Christ  as  his  Saviour — a  pupil  who, 
in  the  Geological  Survey  Corps,  lost  his  life  a  few  months  ago  in  a 
distant  northwestern  State.  I  add  no  more,  as  I  am  not  willing  un- 
duly to  consume  your  time. 

Q.  Waiving  the  admissibility  of  Mr.  Webb's  questions  concerning 
certain  publications  in  the  Southern  Presbi/terian,  when,  as  editor, 
you  have  criticised  current  events  in  the  church,  do  you  ever  do  so 
in  a  spirit  of  bitterness  or  ill-will,  or  with  any  motive  to  injure  any 
church  court  or  any  individual?  A.  So  far  as  I  know  my  own  heart, 
never. 

Q.  Do  you,  ex  (niuno,  answer  affirmatively  the  following  questions: 

1.  "Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
to  be  the  word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

2.  "Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Catechisms  of  this  church  as  containing  the  system  of  doc- 
trine taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures? 

3.  "Do  you  approve  of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States? 


638  :my  life  and  times. 

4.  "Do  you  promise  subjection  to  your  bretliren  in  the  Lord? 

5.  "Have  you  been  induced,  as  far  as  you  know  your  own  heart,  to 
seek  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry,  out  of  love  to  God,  and  a  sincere 
desire  to  promote  his  glory  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son? 

G.  "Do  you  promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the 
truths  of  the  gospel  and  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church,  what- 
ever persecution  or  opposition  may  arise  unto  you  on  that  account? 

7.  "Do  you  engage  to  be  faithful  and  diligent  in  the  exercise  of  all 
your  duties  as  a  Christian,  and  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  whether 
personal  or  relative,  private  or  public;  and  to  endeavor,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  to  adorn  the  profession  of  the  gospel  in  your  conversa- 
tion, and  to  walk  with  exemplary  piety  before  those  among  whom 
God  calls  you  to  labor?" — Form  of  Government,  Par.  119,  Ques.  1-7. 

A.  I  do  answer  all  these  questions  affirmatively  ex  animo. 

Questions  hy  the  Rev.  G.  A.  Blackburn: 

Q.  How  can  ecclesiastical  bodies  rightfully  restrain  the  privilege 
you  claim  of  advocating  your  views  on  evolution?  A.  I  do  not  know. 
Whether  or  not  such  right  exists,  or  may  exist,  under  any  con- 
ceivable circumstances,  1  have  not  sufficiently  considered  to  be  able 
to  express  an  opinion. 

Q.  Would  you  feel  at  liberty  to  advocate  these  views  before  your 
classes  at  the  University  against  any  in  thesi  or  judicial  decision  of 
our  church  courts  on  this  subject?  A.  If  called,  in  the  course  of  my 
teaching,  to  discuss  such  subjects,  I  would  feel  at  liberty  to  ad- 
vocate my  views  before  my  classes  under  the  conditions  set  forth  in 
the  question.  If  not  entitled,  under  our  church  law,  to  exercise  this 
liberty,  I  would  hold  myself  ready  for  trial  before  our  church  courts 
for  having  been  guilty  of  an  offence.  If  found  guilty,  I  would  obey 
the  command  of  the  church  courts  thus  legally  given,  so  long  as  I 
remained  under  their  jurisdiction. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  tlie  Baltimore  decision  as  restraining  your  lib- 
erty to  advocate  your  views  on  evolution?  A.  I  do  not.  The  Balti- 
more decision  affirmed  the  judgment  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  which 
annulled  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  which  was  that 
I  was  not  guilty.  The  effect  of  this  was  to  remand  the  whole  ques- 
tion to  the  presbytery  for  its  action.  The  presbytery  declared  tliere 
was  no  cause  for  action  against  me,  when  I  avowed  my  continued 
belief  of  my  previously  expressed  views;  the  Synod  of  Georgia  ap- 
proved the  record  setting  forth  this  fact;  the  General  Assembly 
approved  the  Synod's  records.  Hence  I  concluded,  both  from  this 
action,  and  from  the  entire  absence  of  any  prohibition  in  the  Balti- 
more decision,  that  no  attempt  to  restrain  my  liberty  had  been 
intended. 

Dr.  Woodrow  offered  the  following  explanation :  I  wish  to  explain 
one  of  my  answers  given  yesterday,  by  saying  that  I  did  not  intend 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIEXCE.  639 

to  recognize  the  Aiken  resolution  forbidding,  etc.,  as  ever  having 
been  addressed  to  me;  so  far  as  I  remember,  it  is  addressed  ex- 
clusively to  the  ministers,  ruling  elders  and  deacons  in  Charleston 
Presbytery.  I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  one  presbytery  to  ex- 
ercise jurisdiction  over  the  members  of  another. 


At  the  close  of  the  examination,  the  Rev.  R.  A.  Webb,  D.  D., 
offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved.  That  Dr.  Woodrow's  examination  be  declared  unsatis- 
factory, and  that  his  api^lication  for  membership  in  this  presbytery 
be  declined. 

"I.  Because  Dr.  Woodrow's  examination  reveals  the  fact  that  his 
life  has  become  so  thoroughly  secularized,  that  this  body,  were  it 
to  receive  him  into  its  membership,  would  feel  constrained  to  re- 
monstrate with  him,  and  this  would  involve  this  presbytery  in  a 
controversy  which  it  does  not  desire. 

"2.  Because  Dr.  Woodrow  has  so  seriously  reflected  upon  the 
honor,  the  sincerity  and  veracity  of  this  body  in  the  columns  of  the 
paper  which  he  edits,  that  this  presbytery  feels  bound  by  consider- 
ations of  dignity  and  self-respect  to  deny  him  the  fellowship  which 
he  seeks.  In  response  to  the  presbytery's  demand  for  the  with- 
drawal of  these  reflections,  he  said,  'I  can  neither  reiterate  nor  dis- 
avow them.  But  I  may  add  that,  so  far  as  anything  that  I  have 
ever  published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  is  concerned,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  show,  before  any  tribunal  where  I  may  be  charged  with 
having  committed  an  offence  in  such  publication,  that  such  publica- 
tion was  right  and  proper,  and  not  an  offence.'  Instead  of  dis- 
avowing these  offensive  epithets,  he  thus  declares  his  ability  to 
prove  them  right  and  proper.  He  himself  has  shut  the  door  of  this 
presbytery  in  his  own  face. 

"3.  Because  Dr.  Woodrow  has  declared  his  disrespect  for,  and  con- 
tempt of,  some  of  the  acts  of  this  presbytery,  and,  upon  the  demand 
of  this  body,  he  has  failed  to  satisfy  it  as  to  the  language  he  used, 
and  as  to  his  spirit  of  obedience. 

"4.  Because  Dr.  Woodrow  has  reaffirmed  his  doctrinal  errors  on 
the  subject  of  evolution,  which  have  been  condemned  several  times 
by  the  courts  of  the  church  as  contrary  to  the  Presbyterian  stan- 
dards, saying,  'I  hold  firmly  to  all  the  views  on  evolution  which  I 
have  published  in  the  last  six  and  a  half  years.  All  my  studies 
during  that  time  have  convinced  me  more  and  more  of  their  proba- 
ble truth.' 

"5.  Because  Dr.  Woodrow  claims  the  right  to  advocate  these  views 
of  evolution  as  occasion   may  present  itself  in   the   face  of  every 


640  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

species  of  decision  known  to  our  law.  'I  claim."  lie  says,  'the  right 
to  advocate  these  views  as  I  may  have  occasion.' 

"0.  Because  the  reception  of  Dr.  Woodrow  under  these  circum- 
stances would  put  this  preshytery  in  grievous  contradiction  with 
itself,  while  this  body  is  still  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  its 
past  history  touching  the  matters  involved;  and  with  this  history 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  familiar  when  he  brought  his  letter  to  this  pres- 
bytery. 

"7.  Because  this  presbytery  agrees  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  when  he 
said,  in  commenting  upon  Dr.  Richardson's  vote  against  the  recep- 
tion of  Dr.  Martin  into  the  Presbytery  of  Memphis,  "Consistency  re- 
quired every  one  who  agreed  with  him  as  to  the  character  of  the 
doctrine  in  question  to  vote  with  him.'  {Southern  Presbyterian, 
August  13,  20,  1885.)  This  presbytery,  in  rejecting  Dr.  Woodrow. 
is  in  accord  with  these  views  of  his  editorial. 

"8.  This  presbytery  is  persuaded  that  it  traverses  no  law  of  the 
church  in  rejecting  this  application.  The  law  of  the  church,  self- 
protection,  and  self-respect  alike  authorize  it." 

Immediately  after  the  reading  of  this  resolution,  Rev.  W.  T. 
Thompson.  D.  D.,  said,  "In  view  of  the  examination,  I  move  that  the 
vote  be  taken  upon  the  resolution  without  debate;  for  to  discuss 
the  question  of  fellowship  with  one  who  has  flung  into  our  teeth 
substantially  the  charge  of  habitual  untruthfulness  is,  to  say  the 
least,  to  compromise  our  self-respect."  This  motion  of  Dr.  Thomp- 
son prevailed:  and  the  resolution  offered  by  Dr.  Webb  was  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  17  to  0. 

Presbytery  ordered  the  examination  spread  upon  the  minutes, 
and  appointed  Rev.  R.  A.  Webb,  D.  D.,  Rev.  W.  T.  Thompson,  D.  D., 
and  Rev.  J.  R.  Dow  a  committee  to  publish  one  thousand  copies  of 
the  same  and  distribute  them  equally  among  the  ministers  of  the 
presbytery. 

Rev.  J.  W.  Flinn  gave  notice  of  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  South 
Carolina  against  this  action  of  the  presbytery  rejecting  Dr.  Wood- 
row,  and  Rev.  R.  A.  Webb,  D.  D..  and  Rev.  W.  T.  Thompson.  D.  D., 
were  appointed  to  represent  the  presbytery  in  the  complaint. 

Professor  Flinn's  Objection  to  Certain  Questions. 

Professor  Flinn  objected  to  Dr.  Webb's  third  question  as  inadmis- 
sible on  the  ground  that  it  unwarrantably  implied  that  the  holding 
of  the  specified  positions  constituted  an  offence  in  the  premises. 

The  Moderator  overruled  the  objection. 

Professor  Flinn  objected  to  Dr.  Webbs  fourth  (juestion  as  inad- 
missible on  the  ground  that  it  impugned  Dr.  Woodrow's  sincerity 
and  veracity  in  his  answer  to  the  third  question. 

The  Moderator  overruled  the  objection. 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  Gil 

Professor  Flinn  objected  to  Dr.  Webb's  questions  from  5-11  in- 
clusive, 14-16  inclusive,  and  to  all  of  Kev.  G.  A.  Blackburn's  ques- 
tions, as  inadmissible.  His  grounds  of  objection  were  all  compre- 
hended under  the  proposition  that  the  questions  contained  un- 
founded implications,  and  imposed  tests  of  fellowship  not  warranted 
by  law,  nor  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 

These  objections  were  all  overruled  by  the  Moderator. 

4.  Professor  Flinn's  Complaint  agxYinst  Charleston 
Presbytery  before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina, 
at  Yorkville. 

The  Synod  took  up  this  case  October  23,  1890,  and  the 
Synod  sustains  the  action  of  the  presbytery.  A  corres- 
pondent of  the  Charleston  Neivs  and  Courier,  of  date  Oc- 
tober 25,  1800,  who  signs  himself  'M.  S.  B.,"  gives  the 
following  accoiuit  of  the  case : 

Professor  Flinn  made  his  complaint  in  an  able  address  of  two 
liours.    lie  made  a  statement  of  the  case  as  follows: 

While  Dr.  Woodrow  was  professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary, 
he  was  quasi  representative  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  in  that  institu- 
tion, and  therefore  had  a  right  to  pursue  his  work  without  the 
bounds  of  Augusta  Presbytery,  to  which  he  belonged.  When  his 
connection  became  severed  with  the  Seminary,  it  became  his  duty 
to  apply  for  admission  into  the  presbytery  ^n  whose  limits  he 
was  then  residing.  This  he  did  in  compliance  with  the  law  before 
the  expiration  of  one  year,  the  prescribed  time.  This  statement 
was  made  to  show  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  complying  only  with  the 
requirements  of  the  church  law  bearing  on  the  case.  As  soon  as  the 
Charleston  Presbytery  heard  through  the  newspapers  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  had  secured  a  letter  of  dismission  from  the  Augusta  Pres- 
bytery, it  at  once,  in  anticipation  of  the  event  that  Dr.  Woodrow 
would  apply  for  admission  in  that  body,  set  to  work  to  defeat  the 
purpose.  The  Rev.  R.  A.  Webb  was  selected  to  prepare  questions 
for  Dr.  Woodrow's  examination,  and  they  were  prepared  in  such  a 
spirit  that  they  could  not  be  answered  in  self-respect.  Not  only  had 
the  questions  been  prepared  beforehand,  but  the  very  resolutions 
rejecting  the  applicant  were  in  a  like  manner  prepared.  The  whole 
matter  was  cut  and  dried,  and  when  it  came  up.  Dr.  Woodrow  was 
rejected  on  the  preestablished  prejudice  of  the  presbytery. 

Professor  Flinn  was  replied  to  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Webb  in  behalf  of 
the  presbytery.  Dr.  Webb's  response  was  very  able,  but  rather  in 
the  nature  of  an  appeal  to  the  Synod.  Referring  to  one  of  the  ques- 
tions, he  drew  a  parallel  as  follows: 


642  MY  LIFE  AND  TI^SIES. 

"A  man  applies  for  admission  into  your  family,  with  the  right  to 
sit  down  at  your  table,  and  a  conversation  like  this  ensues:  'You 
called  me  a  liar  a  year  ago;  are  you  willing  to  retract  it?'  He 
says,  'I  don't  remember  having  called  you  a  liar,  but  if  I  did,  I  am 
prepared  to  prove  it.'  Now,  would  you  be  willing  to  receive  such  a 
man  into  your  family?" 

Dr.  Thompson  followed  Dr.  Webb,  somewhat  in  the  same  line,  in 
reference  to  all  the  abuse  that  Dr.  Woodrow  had  heaped  upon  the 
presbytery,  and  appealed  to  the  Synod,  if  the  presbytery  could,  in 
self-respect,  receive  such  a  man  into  fellowship. 

Professor  Flinn  replied  to  Dr.  Thompson.  He  only  had  a  half 
hour,  but  answered  every  argument,  as  well  as  every  appeal.  He 
said  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  alleged  strictures  could  not  have  been  in- 
tended in  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  taken  by  the  presbytery.  If 
Dr.  Woodrow  thought  the  presbytery  was  composed  of  liars,  is  it 
reasonable,  he  asked,  to  suppose  that  he  would  petition  to  be  asso- 
ciated with  it? 

Following  Professor  Flinn  came  five-minute  speeches  from  such  of 
the  members  as  desired  to  express  an  opinion.  Some  of  these  ex- 
pressions were  quite  heated. 

While  the  debate  was  quite  heated  and  feeling  seemed  to  run 
high,  the  whole  matter  was  conducted  in  a  fair  and  manly  manner. 
About  twenty  of  the  members  took  advantage  of  the  five  minutes' 
privilege,  after  which  the  vote  was  taken.  It  resulted  in  sustaining 
the  presbytery,  ayes  90,  nays  52. 

A  fair  and  competent  reporter  of  the  discussion  fur- 
nishes the  following  brief  outline  of  the  arguments  ad- 
vanced by  the  chief  contestants : 

Professor  Flinn  began  by  appealing  to  the  Digest  for  cases  in- 
volving like  legal  principles  with  the  case  in  question.  He  then  pro- 
ceeded to  show  that,  according  to  our  law — ^Art.  277 — Dr.  Woodrow 
was  doing  only  his  duty  as  a  loyal  minister  of  the  church  when  he 
applied  for  admission  to  Charleston  Presbytery.  Had  Dr.  Wood- 
row,  for  any  reason,  failed  to  make  this  application,  he  would  have- 
been  justly  chargeable  with  neglecting  a  plain  and  ijn})erative  re- 
quirement of  our  law;  he  had  no  option  in  tlie  matter.  Moreover, 
Augusta  Presbytery  was  bound  by  law  to  transfer  Dr.  Woodrow, 
unless  a  sufficient  cause  could  be  assigned  for  not  doing  so;  and  even 
if  Augusta  Presbytery  had  failed  to  do  its  duty,  Charleston  Presby- 
terj'  was  by  law  obliged  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  Dr.  Woodrow, 
giving  due  notice  to  Augusta  Presbytery  of  its  act.  The  law  was  so 
plain  that  no  one  could  fail  to  understand  it. 

He  did  not  question  the  right  of  Charleston  Presbytery  to  ex- 
amine Dr.  Woodrow,  for  this  was  the  duty  of  tiiat  court  under  the- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  G-i3 

law.  The  right  to  examine  necessarily  carries  with  it  the  right  also 
to  exclude — for  sufficient  cause.  Charleston  Presbytery  has  given  us 
its  reasons  for  rejecting  Dr.  Woodrow.  There  are  eight  reasons 
given.  Do  these  give  sufficient — that  is,  legal — cause  for  rejecting 
him? 

Professor  Flinn  then  took  up  these  reasons,  one  by  one,  and  in  hia 
argument  aimed  to  show  their  hollowness  and  insufficiency  when 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  the  law,  which  should  govern  us  in 
all  cases. 

As  to  the  charge  of  a  "secularized  life,"  made  by  the  presbytery 
against  Dr.  Woodrow,  Professor  Flinn  said  that  every  one  familiar 
with  Dr.  Woodrow's  manner  of  life  would  testify  that  tlie  only 
recreation  he  ever  took  was  in  a  change  of  work.  He  had  never  seen 
Dr.  Woodrow  idle  in  his  life,  and  he  was  sure  that  he — Flinn — spent 
as  much,  if  not  more,  time  in  the  year  in  gardening  and  other  do- 
mestic engagements,  than  Dr.  Woodrow  did  in  all  these  secular  mat- 
ters under  his  directorship.  The  same  might  be  said  of  other  min- 
isters, who,  in  addition  to  their  pastoral  duties,  had  farms  or 
schools  or  other  matters  of  a  secular  kind  claiming  a  part  of  their 
time  and  attention,  etc. 

As  to  the  objection  based  on  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  on  evolution. 
Professor  Flinn  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow  had  been  fully  tried  by  the 
church  courts  touching  his  orthodoxy;  and  whatever  some  might 
think  of  his  doctrine,  it  had  not  affected  his  standing  in  the  church. 
If  his  well-known  views  had  not  debarred  him  from  membership  in 
the  General  Assembly,  our  highest  court,  it  was  idle  to  make  these 
views  legal  ground  of  exclusion  from  an  inferior  court. 

As  to  the  personal  reasons  alleged  by  Charleston  Presbytery,  Pro- 
fessor Flinn  claimed  that  the  court  had  erred  in  taking  this  method 
to  redress  personal  grievances.  If  such  grievances  existed,  they 
ought  to  be  settled  as  the  law  directs  in  all  cases  of  personal 
offences.  The  court,  when  it  charged  personal  grievances,  was  in 
law  itself  a  person,  and  should  conduct  itself  according  to  law,  in 
Art.  165 :  "Moreover,  if  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,"  etc. 

We  cannot  continue  the  argument ;  but  in  the  summing  up,  Pro- 
fessor Flinn  regarded  the  rule  of  examination  (  Art.  75),  which  says, 
"Ministers  seeking  admission  to  presbytery  shall  be  examined  on 
experimental  religion,  and  also  touching  their  views  in  theology  and 
church  government,"  as  meaning  substantially  this :  The  presbytery 
has  the  right  to  examine  into  the  moral  conduct  and  orthodoxy  of 
every  applying  minister.  The  evidence  in  the  case  does  not  show 
that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  immoral  in  life,  or  heretical  in  doctrine. 
Therefore,  the  Charleston  Presbytery  violated  the  law  in  rejecting 
him  from  its  membership. 

Rev.  Dr.  Webb  followed  Professor  Flinn.     He  also  began  by  ap- 


€44:  MY  LIFE  AXD  TIMES. 

pealing  to  the  ''Digest"  for  some  parallel  ease  illustrative  of  the  law. 
When  he  came  to  his  argument,  he  claimed  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was 
not  under  obligation  of  law  to  seek  an  entrance  into  Charleston 
Presbytery.  Tliat  this  minister,  although  living  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Charleston  Presbytery  for  the  last  thirty  years,  had  never, 
until  lately,  found  out  that  his  dutj'  required  him  to  transfer  his 
momborship  from  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  to  that  of  Charleston. 
Tliat  Dr.  Woodrow's  claim  "that  so  long  as  he  was  a  representative 
of  Georgia  Synod  through  his  connection  with  the  Theological  Sem- 
inary, it  was  proper  that  he  should  belong  to  a  Georgia  presbytery, 
but  now,  having  ceased  to  be  a  professor  in  the  Seminary,  there  was 
no  longer  a  reason  for  his  non-compliance  with  the  law" — that  this 
was  offset  by  the  fact  that  Dr.  Woodrow,  by  reason  of  his  being  edi- 
tor of  the  Southern  Prenhyterian,  lield  a  kind  of  catholic  relation  to 
the  chiirch,  and  therefore  lie  might  legally  be  in  one  presbytery  as  in 
another.  That  Dr.  Woodrow  must  have  known  that  his  attempted 
entrance  into  Charleston  Presbytery  would  excite  opposition,  and 
therefore  he  knowingly  and  deliberately  had  disturbed  the  peace  of 
the  church.  Dr.  Webb  said  that  self-protection,  honor,  consistency, 
obliged  the  presbytery  to  reject  this  applicant. 

The  speaker  held  that  the  presbytery  had  the  inalienable  right  to 
determine  Avho  should  be  members  of  the  body,  and,  if  we  under- 
stood him,  he  claimed  that  presbytery  had  the  exclusive  right,  and 
was  not  subject,  in  such  a  matter,  to  the  overruling  of  a  superior 
court.  When  he  came  to  consider  the  reasons  assigned  by  Charles- 
ton Presbytery  for  its  action,  in  justification  of  the  first  reason.  Dr. 
Webb  appealed  to  Paul's  direction  to  Timothy,  "No  man  that  war- 
reth  entangleth  himself  with  the  affairs  of  this  life,"  etc.  As  to  Dr. 
Woodrow's  theory  of  evolution,  the  church,  said  Dr.  Webb,  had  con- 
demned it  by  every  species  of  decision.  The  hard  things  Dr.  Wood- 
row  said  about  the  presbytery  were  very  hard  to  bear,  etc.  He  ap- 
pealed to  the  Synod  not  to  force  on  an  unwilling  presbytery  a  man 
who  was  so  objectionable  in  the  many  ways  enumerated.  The  peace 
of  the  presbytery  and  of  the  church  made  it  desirable  that  Dr. 
W^oodrow  should  not  be  thrust  into  their  body,  etc. 

Dr.  Thompson,  who  divided  the  allotted  time  with  Dr.  Webb,  was 
the  next  speaker.  He  said,  in  his  opening  remarks,  that  he  would 
attempt  to  confine  his  words  within  limits  of  strictest  propriety, 
but  accustomed,  as  he  had  been,  in  the  late  war  to  the  position  of  a 
cavalry  leader,  his  impetuosity  might  lead  him  to  transgress  the 
limits  he  assigned  himself,  etc.  He  soon  launched  out,  and  gave, 
with  impassioned  vehemence,  his  objections  to  having  Dr.  Woodrow 
received  into  the  presbytery.  These  objections  were  almost  wholly 
along  the  line  of  personal  grievances,  in  view  of  the  hard  things 
Dr.  Woodrow  had  said  or  published  against  the  Charleston  Presby- 


CONTKOVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE.  645 

tery,  he  was  sure  that  tlie  Synod  would  not  force  him  upon  them, 
etc. 

Professor  Flinn  closed  in  a  half-liour  speech,  in  which  he  reviewed 
the  argument  of  the  respondents,  and  attempted  to  show  that  the 
personal  reasons  presented  were  not  sufficient  to  justify  the  action  of 
the  presbytery.  In  a  word,  they  Avere  not  recognized  in  our  law  as 
the  ground  of  excluding  a  minister  from  membership  in  a  presbytery. 

The  roll  was  now  called,  and  every  member  of  Synod  allowed  five 
minutes  for  expressing  his  opinion.  Some  stirring,  short  speeches 
were  made.  Some  of  the  brethren  did  not  endorse  Charleston  Pres- 
bytery's reasons  for  rejecting  Dr.  Woodrow,  but  they  were  unwill- 
ing, for  prudential  i-easons — the  peace  of  the  presbytery,  and  the 
good  of  all  concerned — to  force  Dr.  Woodrow  on  an  unwilling  body. 
Others  thought  the  question  of  law  was  the  matter  brought  before 
us  by  the  complaint,  and  this  was  all  that  we  ought  to  consider.  The 
surest  and  shortest  way  to  peace  was  in  following  the  law  ourselves, 
and  causing  others  to  do  likewise. 

This  complaint  consumed  a  long  time,  but  the  Synod  gave  it  a 
very  patient  hearing.  The  spirit  in  which  the  whole  debate  was  had 
was  excellent,  and  there  was  an  evident  desire  on  the  part  of  each 
speaker  to  refrain  from  all  offensive  personalities. 

Theological  Seminary. 
This  institution,  as  usual,  claimed  the  attention  of  Synod.  Rev. 
T.  C.  Whaling  offered  a  resolution  looking  to  a  change  in  the  present 
policy  of  the  Seminary,  so  that  students  might  be  allowed  to  attend 
Dr.  Woodrow's  lectures  in  the  University,  except  when  forbidden  to 
do  so  by  the  presbyteries  having  authority  over  them.  He  made  a 
very  earnest  speech  and  gave  cogent  reasons  in  support  of  his  reso- 
lution, feeling  sure  that,  if  this  were  done,  we  all  could  join  in  a 
more  hearty  support  of  the  Seminarj'.  Rev.  Mr.  Blackburn  spoke 
in  opposition  to  the  resolution  saying,  in  substance,  we  have  gone 
as  far  as  we  intend  to  go  in  this  matter.  He  then,  upon  the  con- 
clusion of  his  speech,  called  the  question,  which  being  sustained,  no 
further  debate  on  the  resolution  was  allowed.  The  resolution  offered 
by  Mr.  Whaling  was  then  rejected.    ... 

The  New  Plax  of  Government  for  the  Theological  Seminary. 
There  were  two  reports  on  this  new  constitution,  or  plan  of  gov- 
ernment. One  recommended  the  adoption,  with  the  modifications 
made  by  the  Synod  of  Georgia.  The  other  report,  presented  by  Rev. 
Mr.  Mills,  approved  of  some  changes  made  in  the  revised  plan,  but 
disapproved  of  the  proposed  increase  in  the  number  of  directors, 
and  their  distribution  among  the  Synods.  The  board  was,  in  his 
judgment,  already  large  enough  to  secure  efficiency. 


€4G  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Tlie  new  constitution  was  adopted  by  a  majority  vote.  If  the 
finances  of  tlie  Seminary  will  bear  this  increased  strain,  we  suppose 
no  harm  will  come  of  it;  but  some  of  us  think  that  the  increased 
expenditure  is  a  useless  Avaste  of  money.  It  may  be  a  matter  of 
interest  to  some  to  know  that,  under  the  new  constitution,  a  pro- 
fessor who  has  been  ejected  by  the  board  has  no  appeal  to  the  con- 
trolling Synods.  J.  S.  C. 

Professor  Flinn  did  not  prospcute  his  complaint  to  the 
ensuing  Assembly  at  Birmingham  in  1891,  of  which  ho 
g'ave  notice ;  bnt  when  the  motion  was  made  to  approve 
the  records  of  the  Synod,  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Workman,  com- 
missioner from  Harmony  Presbytery,  objected,  pointing 
ont  wdiy  they  should  not  be  approved,  but  his  vote  w^as 
the  only  one  against  apj^roval. 

Subsequently  a  memorial  to  the  Synod  of  South  Caro- 
lina, meeting  at  Abbeville,  on  the  subject  of  Charleston 
Presbytery's  rejection  of  Dr.  Woodrow,  which  was  refer- 
red to  a  committee,  was  laid  on  the  table  along  with  the 
•committee's  report  urging  the  Synod's  action  respecting 
the  same. 

At  the  same  Synod  resolutions  offered  by  Pev.  J.  S. 
Cozby  on  the  subject  of  the  Seminary  boycott  of  Dr. 
AVoodrow  were  also  laid  on  the  table ;  and  no  further 
public  proceedings  have  since  taken  place  on  that  subject. 

When  the  Assembly  at  Birmingham  had  thus  con- 
firmed the  action  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  respect- 
ing Dr.  Woodrow's  rejection,  he  so  reported  to  his  Pres- 
bytery of  Augusta.  He  maintained  the  view  that  he  was 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  that  presbytery,  but  not 
entitled  to  act  as  a  member  of  it,  and  so,  of  course,  as  to 
the  Synod  of  Georgia.  After  a  while  the  Augusta  Presby- 
tery overtured  the  Assembly  at  Nashville,  in  1894,  as  to 
the  matter.  The  answer  of  the  Assembly  is  found  on  page 
234  of  their  minutes,  and  is  as  follows: 

Tlie  report  of  the  Committee  on  Bills  and  Overtures  on  the  over- 
ture from  Augusta  Presbytery  anent  the  relations  of  Dr.  Woodrow 
to  said  presbytery  was  taken  from  the  docket,  was  adopted,  and  is 
as  follows: 

"The  Presbytery  of  Augusta  respectfully  overtures  the  General 
Assembly  for  instruction  in  the  following  case: 

"The  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  being  a  member  of  this  presby- 


CONTEOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE,  647 

tery,  but  residing  in  the  bounds  of  Charleston  Presbytery,  obtained 
a  letter  of  dismission  from  the  former  to  the  latter;  he  presented 
this  letter  of  dismission  to  Charleston  Presbytery,  and  his  applica- 
tion for  membership  was  rejected.  He  remains,  of  course,  after 
Charleston  Presbytery  rejected  his  application  for  membership, 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  Augusta  Presbytery;  but,  until  he  has 
formally  returned  the  letter  of  dismission  to  this  presbytery,  is  he  en- 
titled to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  membership?  If  it  is  neces- 
sary that  he  should  return  his  letter  of  dismission  to  Augusta  Pres- 
bytery in  order  to  be  entitled  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  active 
membership,  is  he  prevented  from  doing  so  by  the  law  of  our  church, 
Par.  277,  requiring  that  a  minister  shall  be  a  member  of  the  pres- 
bytery in  the  bounds  of  Avhich  he  resides? 

"M.  C.  Britt,  Stated  Clerk." 

Beg  leave  to  report  that,  inasmuch  as  a  minister  who  has  a  letter 
of  dismission  from  his  own  presbytery  to  another  presbytery  re- 
mains under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  presbytery  from  which  he  was 
dismissed  until  he  has  been  formally  received  by  the  presbytery  to 
which  he  was  dismissed  (Book  of  Church  Order,  Rules  of  Discipline, 
Chap.  XV.,  Sec.  v..  Par.  280),  he  is  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  membership  in  the  presbytery  from  which  he  was  dis- 
missed; and  it  is  the  judgment  of  your  committee  that  Par.  277 
does  not  forbid  him  to  return  his  letter. 

''This  meant  clearly,"  says  Dr.  Woodrow,  "that  the 
rule  277  does  not  mean  anything,  and,  if  it  does,  that  it 
may  be  disregarded ;  and  that  one  does  not  need  to  hold 
membership  in  the  presbytery  within  the  bounds  of  which 
he  lives.  All  this  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  constitu- 
tion ;  but,  as  obedience  to  the  decision  as  to  a  matter  of 
order  did  not  seem  to  me  to  involve  sin,  I  obeyed.  The 
answer  involves  this,  that  I  may  belong  to  a  presbytery 
where  I  do  not  live.  As  South  Carolina  Presbytery  is 
nearer  than  Augusta,  instead  of  returning  my  letter  of 
dismission  to  Augusta,  I  presented  it  to  South  Carolina, 
where  I  was  received  with  open  arms.  I  pointed  out 
then,  and  have  often  done  so  since,  that,  in  my  opinion, 
the  Assembly's  answer  is  as  directly  opposed  to  the  con- 
stitution as  anything  could  be.  I  was  received  by  South 
Carolina  Presbytery  in  September,  1894,  at  Williams- 
ton." 

Thus  ends  mv  historv  of  the  evolution  controversy. 


648  IMY  LIFE  Ax\D  TIMES. 

CoMAIENTS. 

Having  thus  detailed  patiently  and  fnlly,  and  I  hope 
fairly  and  impartiality,  a  history  of  the  evolntiou  contro- 
versy in  the  Presbyterian  Chnrch  in  the  United  States,  I 
will  now  proceed,  as  is  coninion  Avith  historians,  to  set 
forth  my  reflections  on  the  facts  detailed. 

The  first  comment  I  have  to  make  is  that  the  reader 
mnst  be  ready  to  pronounce  the  hypothesis  of  evolution, 
and  Dr.  Woodrow  along  with  it,  overwhelmingly  de- 
feated;  because,  with  the  exception  of  the  Synod  at 
Greenville  with  its  original  Board  of  Directors;  the 
Presbytery  of  Augusta  at  Bethany ;  in  some  sense  the 
General  Assembly  at  Baltimore,  and,  lastly,  the  Synod 
at  Greenwood,  every  ecclesiastical  body  that  has  had 
to  do  with  this  question  has  condemned  the  hypothesis  by 
large  majorities.  Three  General  Assemblies,  a  number 
of  different  synods  and  presbyteries,  counting  from  Octo- 
ber, 1884,  down  to  the  fall  of  18J)0,  uttered  their  voices 
more  or  less  distinctly  against  this  new  theory  and  its 
professor,  while  a  great  array  of  religious  newspapers 
levelled  their  batteries  against  it.  There  was  but  one 
Presbyterian  newspaper,  so  far  as  I  can  remember,  not  to 
speak  of  the  Professor's  own  organ,  that  favored  evolution 
at  all. 

As  one  looks  over  this  field  of  battle  at  the  close  of  the 
combat,  he  discovers  one  little  company  completcdy 
routed.  These  were  the  men  who  had  been  willing  to  give 
natural  science  a  fair  chance  to  speak  out  of  her  newly 
opened  book.  The  observer  also  perceives  the  victorious 
hosts  of  anti-evolution  marching  trium])hantly  over  the 
whole  field.  But  we  must  bear  in  mind  what  our  im- 
mortal John  of  Geneva  truly  said,  that  ''votes  ought  to  be 
weighed,  not  counted."  The  conventional  rule  which  says 
the  majority  must  govern  is  unavoidably  the  necessary 
one,  and  therefore  it  is  a  good  rule ;  but  none  can  doubt 
that  it  often  makes  the  wrong  triumph  over  the  right. 
Calvin  again  well  says,  ^'Incerturn  scindi  in  studui  ron- 
traria  vidgufi."  "The  uncertain  crowd  is  split  up  into 
contradictory  purposes."  What  big  crowd  of  num  ever 
deals  wisely  with  an  exciting  question  ^ 


COT^TROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  6-iO 

If  truth  is  at  the  bottom  of  a  well,  no  crowd  can  make 
it  out.  The  common  sense  of  mankind  is  a  high  author- 
ity, but  not  on  questions  liable  to  be  answered  in  ignor- 
ance or  by  prejudice.  Truth  in  its  highest  and  purest 
sense  has  never  been  held  except  by  the  minority.  Gen- 
erally speaking,  the  majority  follows  its  leader  unthink- 
ingly ;  but  generally  speaking,  there  are  a  few  who  think 
for  themselves,  and  so  break  away  and  become  the  mi- 
nority. Who  is  most  likely  to  be  right,  the  one  man  who 
leads  the  crowd,  or  a  number  who  can  think  as  well  as  he, 
and  so  constitute  the  minority? 

Apart  from  all  this,  however,  may  it  not  be  truly  said 
that  no  body  of  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and  fifty 
men  that  ever  met  can  be  competent  to  take  up  a  ques- 
tion that  is  new  to  them,  as  well  as  complicated,  and  give 
a  wise  decision  after  hearing  simply  a  few  hours'  debate 
by  earnest  speakers  on  both  sides.  This  may  seem  to  in- 
validate our  General  Assembly's  decisions.  I  reply,  that 
the  questions  to  be  decided  by  the  Assembly  are  commonly 
not  new  to  the  body ;  still  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether 
our  Presbyterian  courts  should  be  so  constituted  as  to  be- 
come always  larger  as  they  rise  in  the  scope  and  weight  of 
their  authority.  There  is  safety  in  a  multitude  of  coun- 
sellors, but  certainly  not  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
the  multitude.  We  have  now  some  thirteen  synods.  An 
Assembly  composed  of  two  presbyters  from  each  of  these 
synods  would  be  a  safer  appellate  court  than  one  composed 
of  two,  and  sometimes  four,  commissioners  from  each  of 
our  seventy-six  presbyteries. 

The  next  comment  wdiich  I  have  to  make  is,  that  it  is  of 
comparatively  small  consequence  to  the  church  whether 
the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  true  or  false ;  but  that 
which  is  of  the  very  greatest  consequence  is  the  lesson 
which  this  controversy  holds  up  to  the  church.  In  several 
past  ages  she  has  had  to  learn  this  lesson ;  but  it  seems  to 
be  one  easily  forgotten,  and  it  has  had  to  be  repeated  in 
this  generation.  The  lesson  is,  that  the  mission  of  the 
church  is  to  conserve  and  proclaim  God's  word  in  the  scrip- 
tures, and  outside  of  what  this  involves  she  has  no  author- 
ity at  all.  As  jurisdiction  in  matters  political  or  civil  is 
expressly  forbidden  to  her,  it  is  a  plain  inference  that  she 


C50  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

is  not  to  enter  into  the  domain  of  natural  science.  Her 
proper  sphere  is  large  enough,  and  she  must  not  seek  to 
widen  it  by  entering  into  any  other.  To  teach  what  man 
is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God  requires 
of  man,  is  surely  work  enough  for  all  her  energies.  It 
might  well  fill  an  angel's  hand,  and  it  did  fill  our  Sav- 
iour's hands  when  he  was  on  earth.  In  no  age  of  the 
church,  even  the  very  best,  have  the  ministry  or  the  pres- 
byterial  courts  of  the  church  ever  come  up  to  the  full  dis- 
charge of  the  work  committed  to  her.  The  whole  counsel 
of  God,  which  is  to  guide  her,  is  either  expressly  written 
down  or  deducible  therefrom,  and  to  this  nothing  is  at 
any  time  to  be  added. 

'No  faithful  minister  of  the  gospel  will  ever  disgrace  his 
pulpit  by  preaching  anything  but  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
He  has  no  time  to  preach  anything  else.  K"o  General 
Assembly  that  ever  sat  has  adequately  discharged  its 
proper  duties  in  the  time  allotted  to  it.  It  has  no  time  to 
give  to  anything  outside  its  appointed  sphere.  ISTot  only 
Qur  doctrine,  but  our  order,  is  matter  of  revelation.  Jesus 
is  King  in  Zion,  and  does  not  leave  to  men  the  organiza- 
tion of  his  kingdom  on  earth.  When  our  Beloved  planted 
a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful  hill,  he  also  fenced  it.  The 
fencing  was  as  important  as  the  planting.  Presbyterian 
church  government  is  jure  divino.  All  the  essentials  of  it 
are  expressly  found  in  scripture,  while  all  the  circum- 
stantials are  provided  for  in  the  rule  to  do  all  things  de- 
cently and  in  order.  We  can  give  scripture  for  a  church 
session  of  "elders  in  every  church,"  for  "an  eldership  in 
every  city"  consisting  of  several  church  sessions;  and 
for  a  synod  or  assembly  as  a  high  court  of  appeals.  When 
we  come  by  divine  permission  to  arrange  the  circumstan- 
tials decently  and  in  order,  we  give  a  definite  and  precise 
sphere  to  each  court  and  the  jurisdiction  of  these  courts 
is  limited  by  the  express  provisions  of  the  constitution, 
each  court  exercising  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  over 
all  matters  belonging  to  it,  while  yet  the  lower  courts  are 
all  subject  to  the  review  and  control  of  the  higher  courts 
in  regular  gradation ;  but  the  four  modes  in  which  alone 
a  case  mav  be  carried  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  court  are 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  651 

'Carefully  and  specifically  described  in  a  whole  chapter  of 
our  Discipline. 

In  view  of  all  these  statements,  I  must  be  allowed  to 
say  that  if  the  case  which  has  so  disturbed  our  church  had 
been  left  to  the  original  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Augusta,  and  then  carried  up,  according  to  our  constitu- 
tion, to  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  and  thence  up  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  which  met  at  iVugusta  in  1886,  our  order 
had  not  been  violated,  nor  the  peace  of  our  church  so  much 
disturbed.  Instead  of  these  regular  proceedings,  over- 
tures from  seven  different  presbyteries  to  the  General  As- 
sembly for  in  thesi  deliverances,  and  those  deliverances 
relating  to  a  question  of  science,  are  welcomed  by  the  As- 
sembly at  Augusta,  and  a  special  committee  of  reference 
appointed  on  the  very  first  day,  before  any  of  these  over- 
tures had  come  to  hand,  and  along  with  this  remarkable 
proceeding  by  that  Assembly,  "a  free  fight"  instituted  all 
over  the  church,  presbyteries  and  synods  vieing  with  each 
other  for  a  superserviceable  participation  in  the  discus- 
sion. 

Again,  it  is  fundamental  to  the  Presbyterian  system 
that  every  one  of  its  courts  is  a  presbytery,  composed  of 
the  same  elements,  viz.,  presbyters  that  rule  and  presby- 
ters that  also  teach,  and  possessed  inherently  of  the  same 
kinds  of  rights  and  powers.  Accordingly,  while  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  Assembly  to  review  and  correct  the  pro- 
ceedings of  all  its  synods,  and  the  duty  of  each  synod  to 
review  and  correct  the  proceedings  of  all  its  presbyteries, 
and  the  duty  of  every  presbytery  to  review  and  correct 
the  proceedings  of  all  its  sessions,  yet  this  duty  of  review 
is  confined  by  law^,  on  the  part  of  each  court,  only  to  the 
•court  next  below  it,  and  so  the  books  of  every  lower  court 
must  be  sent  up  in  due  order  and  at  proper  time  to  the 
court  next  above  it.  Thus  does  the  Presbyterian  system 
provide  for  a  legitimate  and  regular  oversight  and  control 
-of  the  proceedings  of  each  court  by  the  court  immediately 
above  it.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Assembly  can 
resolve  questions  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  so  can  the 
-classical,  and  even  parochial,  presbytery.  Every  session, 
presbytery  and  synod  should  appoint  a  committee  to  ex- 
amine the  published  proceedings  of  the  higher  courts, 


"^52  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES, 

and  report  to  the  proper  court  every  action  of  the  liigliei' 
courts  which  requires  the  attention  of  the  lower  bodies. 
"It  is  a  beautiful  system/'  said  Dr.  Thornwell  once  to  me, 
"if  Presbyterians  only  really  believed  in  it  themselves^ 
which,  alas !  they  do  not ;  and  therefore  it  does  not  pro- 
duce its  proper  effectual  results."  The  system  is  a  di- 
vinely revealed  one.  There  is  life  in  every  part  of  it,  and 
the  life  blood  ought  to  flow  throughout  the  whole  body. 
There  ought  to  be  healthful  inter-action  between  each  part 
and  all  its  fellow  parts;  and  so  it  is  the  plain  right  of 
either  the  session,  presbytery  or  synod  to  testify  its  judg- 
ment of  whatever  the  preceding  Assembly  may  have  said 
or  done.  Although  that  General  Assembly  has  given  a 
final  decision,  which  has  to  be  obeyed,  still  it  is  the  right, 
and  may  be  the  duty,  of  these  lower  courts  to  put  on  record 
their  assent  or  dissent  respecting  the  same.  Much  more, 
then,  does  it  belong  to  every  General  Assembly  to  look 
into  the  proceedings  of  its  predecessor,  and  bear  testi- 
mony against  any  error  respecting  doctrine  or  discipline 
into  which  it  may  have  fallen. 

But  when  two  presbyteries  overtured  the  Assembly  at 
St.  Louis,  in  1887,  to  know  whether  it  was  a  just  claim, 
made  and  acted  on  by  its  predecessor  at  Augusta,  in  1886, 
that  our  Assembly  possesses  original  jurisdiction  over  all 
theological  seminaries  and  other  like  corporations,  and 
over  all  schemes  for  religious  work  begun  by  the  courts 
below,  and  over  all  office-bearers  of  the  church,  to  deter- 
mine which  of  these  shall  be  the  professors,  directors  and 
agents  of  these  institutions,  and  to  direct  when  either 
of  such  shall  bo  expelled  from  his  office,  and  what  kind  of 
persons  shall  be  their  successors,  that  Assembly  gave  only 
the  following  answer:  "Touching  the  subject  matter  re- 
ferred to  in  these  overtures,  this  Assembly  declines  to 
formulate  any  detailed  explanation  of  the  acts  of  the  last 
Assembly,  as  any  such  statement,  however  expressed, 
could  only  be  regarded  as  a  new  deliverance  on  the  same 
subjects,  which  this  Assembly  does  not  feel  called  upon 
to  make." 

Now,  I  ask,  was  this  "the  clear-cut  decision  of  an  As- 
sembly," which  Dr.  Armstrong  told  us  at  Augusta  was 
best  obtainable  by  overtures  ?    Was  it  not,  rather,  a  very 


CONTKOVEKSIES  OF  SCIEXCE.  653 

clear  and  intentional  evasion  of  the  question  asked  ?  Why 
did  not  the  Assembly  at  St.  Louis  speak  out  plainly  and 
say,  either  that  it  stood  by  the  decisions  of  the  Assembly 
at  Augusta,  or  else  that  that  Assembly,  on  the  ninth  day 
of  its  proceedings,  had  been  led  to  make  unconstitutional 
claims  for  our  highest  court  ? 

"Original  jurisdiction  in  relation  to  ministers  of  the 
gospel  pertains  exclusively  to  the  presbytery,  and  in  rela- 
tion to  other  church  members  to  the  session."  (See  Rules, 
Chap,  v..  Sec.  1.)  The  meaning  of  this  rule  is,  that 
neither  the  synod  nor  the  General  Assembly,  being  our 
highest  appellate  courts,  can  originate  a  process  of  dis- 
cipline with  any  minister ;  nor  can  either  of  these,  nor  yet 
the  presbytery,  begin  the  discipline  of  any  elder,  deacon, 
or  any  other  church  member.  If  any  minister  be  guilty 
of  an  "offence,"  it  is  the  presbytery  exclusively  that  has 
authority  to  try  him ;  and  if  any  elder,  deacon,  or  other 
church  member,  it  is  the  session  exclusively  which  must 
begin  to  deal  with  him.  i^o  case  of  discipline  whatever 
can  commence  in  any  synod,  much  less  in  the  General 
Assembly. 

According  to  these  provisions,  the  presbytery  does  not 
meddle  with  what  concerns  a  particular  session,  unless 
regularly  brought  up  for  its  examination ;  its  sphere  is  to 
oversee  the  sessions  as  they  report  to  it,  and  to  take  care 
of  the  affairs  that  are  common  to  a  number  of  them, 
which  no  one  of  these  lowest  courts  can  manage.  So  the 
synod  does  not  intrude  into  the  business  of  any  presbytery 
unless  appealed  to,  but  has  charge  of  what  is  commoji  to 
several  presbyteries,  and  which  no  one  of  them  is  able  to 
direct.  In  like  manner  the  Assembly  leaves  each  synod 
to  do  its  business,  and  each  presbytery  to  attend  to  its  own 
duties,  while  it  looks  after  the  general  interests  of  the 
whole  church. 

JSTow,  these  principles,  by  which  the  power  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  is  limited,  are  to  be  found  imbedded  in  the 
old  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline  as  they  were 
before  we  adopted  our  revised  Form  and  Rules.  But  the 
reader  will  observe  that  our  Book  of  Church  Order  gives 
to  them  very  far  greater  distinctness,  and  makes  the  most 
emphatic  utterance  of  them.    And  there  is  a  bit  of  history 


664  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

to  be  rocoTinted  here.  Whilst  oin-  church  was  busy  with 
its  work  of  revision,  there  occurred,  on  the  part  of  the 
jSTortliern  Assembly,  somethino-  wjiieli  took  our  peo])le  by 
surprise,  and  impressed  us  all  with  the  propriety  of  more 
express  provisions  for  guarding  against  assumptions  of 
power  by  Presbyterian  high  courts.  The  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky having  not  yet  severed  its  connection  with  the 
xNTorthern  Church,  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville  sent  Dr. 
Stuart  Robinson  and  Dr.  Samuel  R.  Wilson  {clara  ac 
venerabilia  nomina),  with  Ruling  Elders  Wickliife  and 
Hardin,  as  its  commissioners  to  the  General  Assembly  at 
St.  Louis,  in  1866.  These  brethren  had  been  considered 
disloyal  to  the  United  States  government  during  its  war 
with  the  Confederacy;  and  for  this,  as  soon  as  they  ap- 
peared on  the  floor  of  the  patriotic  ecclesiastical  assem- 
blage, that  body  proceeded  summarily  to  eject  them.  In 
vain  did  they  present  their  commissions,  all  in  due  order, 
from  the  Louisville  Presbytery.  Loyalty  to  Csesar  on 
the  part  of  the  church  was  the  idea  dominant,  and  the 
Louisville  commissioners  were  disloyal,  and  ipso  facto 
were  unfit  to  take  their  seats  in  that  high  court,  and  they 
were  thrust  out.  Upon  them,  and  upon  their  presbytery 
alike,  the  heavy  foot  of  the  Assembly  was  set,  and  they 
and  it  alike  despoiled  of  their  constitutional  rights.  Our 
church  at  once  took  the  alarm.  At  that  period  we  had 
never  seen  the  General  Assembly  so  boldly  usurp  au- 
thority, and  it  wore  a  frightful  look.  We  all  thought  then 
that  such  a  proceeding,  by  a  body  constituted  as  the  As- 
sembly is,  was  outrageous.  And  precisely  for  the  purpose 
of  guarding  against  the  like  amongst  ourselves,  there  were 
immediately  introduced  into  our  constitution  those  ex- 
press provisions. 

Our  Assembly,  then,  is  to  superintend  ''such  matters 
as  concern  the  whole  church."  Well,  heresy  in  a  minister 
concerns  the  whole  church.  Yes,  but  the  constitution 
commits  his  trial  for  heresy  exclusively  to  his  presbytery, 
until  such  time  as  it  shall  lawfully  come  first  before  the 
synod,  and  then,  as  to  the  court  of  last  resort,  before  the 
Assembly ;  and  according  to  our  constitution,  there  are 
provided  four  modes,  and  only  four,  in  which  "a  cause 
may  be  carried  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  court."     These 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  655 

are  general  review  and  control,  reference,  appeal,  and 
complaint ;  and  onr  Book  prescribes  exactly  liow  each  of 
these  modes  is  to  be  employed.  But,  in  the  case  we  are 
now  considering  at  the  Augusta  Assembly,  neither  of  these 
modes  was  resorted  to,  but  a  new  one  was  needed  and  was 
devised ! 

Again :  The  reader  of  this  volume,  if  he  will  look  back 
to  the  history  of  the  Old  and  ISTew  School  controversy, 
will  find  the  account  of  a  flagrant  outrage  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  183 6j^  which  was  dominated  by  the  New 
School  party  of  that  time.  This  was  one  of  the  many 
ways  in  which  the  so-called  Plan  of  Union — better  named 
the  Plan  of  Contention — had  tormented  the  Presbyterian 
church  of  those  times  for  more  than  thirty  years.  I  refer 
to  the  creation  by  that  Assembly  of  what  was  appropri- 
ately designated  an  ''Elective  Affinity  Presbytery"  in  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  and  against  its  remonstrances. 
This  consisted  of  a  company  of  ministers  and  churches, 
pointed  out  by  name,  thrown  together  because  of  their 
doctrinal  sympathies  and  irrespective  of  geographical 
boundaries.  Then,  to  place  this  body  beyond  the  reach 
of  synodical  action,  it  was  erected,  with  two  others  of  like 
sentiment,  into  the  Synod  of  Delaware.  Here  was  not 
only"  an  asylum  provided  for  men  unsound  in  the  faith, 
but  presbyteries  were  created  to  license  candidates  who 
would  everywhere  else  be  rejected.  The  reader  will  see 
at  a  glance  how  different  an  ''Elective  Affinity  Presby- 
tery" is  from  the  presbytery  described  in  the  old  Form 
of  Government,  as  well  as  in  our  Revised  Form.  Rule 
72-1.  makes  the  presbytery  consist  of  all  the  ministers 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  church  within  a  certain 
district.  The  geographical  boundary  is  an  essential  part 
of  the  definition.  No  presbytery  could  have  part  of  its 
ministers  or  churches  resident  within  the  bounds  of  an- 
other presbytery.  This  is  an  essential  principle  of  Pres- 
byterian Church  government.  This  principle,  however, 
is  sometimes  modified  in  its  operation  by  another,  which 
was  very  strongly  developed  in  our  Southern  church  by 
the  elder  controversy.  That  controversy  taught  our 
church  that  the  ruling  elder  is  as  necessary  a  member  of 
our  church  courts  as  the  teaching  elder,  and  has  made  us 


G56  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

very  averse  to  too  much  of  what  is  called  clerical  influ- 
ence. The  words  ''clergy/'  ''clergyman"  and  "clerical" 
are  not  Presbyterian  terms ;  but  we  insist  that  the  min- 
istry shall  not  overbalance  the  other  branch  of  our  popu- 
lar representation.  Accordingly,  when,  for  example,  half 
a  dozen  ministers  are  placed  by  an  Assembly  or  a  synod 
to  do  its  work  within  the  bounds  of  some  presbytery,  it  is 
not  considered  proper  that  they  all  be  clustered  together 
as  members  of  that  presbytery,  but  each  one  is  expected 
to  hold  his  former  presbyterial  relations. 

The  geographical  boundary  is  seen  to  be  very  important 
when  we  apply  it  to  the  private  members  of  the  church. 
Hundreds  of  our  church  members  every  year  pass  away 
from  both  the  communion  and  the  oversight  which  all 
Presbyterians  appreciate  so  highly.  They  migrate  to 
some  new  home,  and  fail  to  carry  any  certificate  of  their 
church  membership  with  them.  ]^ot  a  church,  perhaps, 
in  our  whole  country  but  has  lost  members  from  its  roll 
without  knowing  what  became  of  them,  and  not  a  church, 
perhaps,  in  our  whole  country  but  has  Presbyterian  peo- 
ple coming  to  dwell  within  its  territory  who  owe  no  sub- 
mission to  its  watch  and  care. 

The  importance,  therefore,  of  Rule  277-11.  of  our  Dis- 
cipline is  very  manifest.  It  requires  every  church  mem- 
ber or  officer  removing  his  residence  beyond  the  bounds  of 
the  court  which  has  jurisdiction  over  him  to  apply  for  the 
transfer  of  his  relations.  It  also  requires  the  court  from 
whose  bounds  he  has  removed  itself  to  make  the  transfer 
if  he  neglects  it  for  twelve  months.  If  both  neglect  this 
duty,  the  court  into  whose  bounds  he  has  moved  is  re- 
quired to  make  this  transfer,  giving  due  notice  to  the 
court  that  has  been  left. 

Now,  when  Dr.  Woodrow  ceased  to  be  a  professor  at 
Columbia,  this  rule,  of  course,  applied  to  him.  The 
Presbytery  of  Augusta  dismissed  him  as  a  member  in 
good  standing  to  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston,  which  re- 
fused to  receive  him  by  a  vote  of  seventeen  to  six.  Pro- 
fessor PHnn  complained  to  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina 
of  this  violation  of  the  rule  in  our  Discipline.  The  synod 
voted  down  his  complaint  by  a  vote  of  ninety  to  fifty-two. 
lie  gave  notice  of  complaint  to  the  next  Assembly,  at 


CONTKOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  G57 

Birmingham,  but  failed  to  prosecute  it;  but  that  Assem- 
bly approved  the  records  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina 
on  this  point,  with  but  one  negative  vote.  The  Presbytery 
of  Augusta  made  a  final  appeal  to  the  xlssembly  at  Nash- 
ville, in  1894,  and  that  Assembly  gave  an  answer  which, 
in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which  were  fully  ex- 
plained to  it,  signified  plainly  that  Rule  277  does  not 
mean  anything,  and  if  it  does,  it  may  be  disregarded. 
Here,  then,  is  a  presbytery,  and  then  a  synod,  and  then 
a  General  Assembly,  and  then  finally  another  General  As- 
sembly, all  declaring  that  our  Rules  of  Order  have  no 
binding  force. 

Here,  then,  is  the  lesson  which  this  controversy  teaches 
our  church.  Every  one  of  her  courts  that  ever  sat  has  had 
abundance  of  legitimate  work,  and  never  has  been  able 
adequately  to  overtake  and  fully  discharge  its  duty  in  the 
premises ;  and  yet  her  courts  will  often  take  up  a  matter 
about  which  they  cannot  have  anything  lawfully  to  say. 
They  will  get  excited  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject. 
They  will  assume  authority  not  belonging  to  them^  and, 
so  assuming,  they  will  do  injustice  to  a  brother,  and  they 
will  flagrantly  and  repeatedly  violate  their  own  rules. 
Here  have  I  set  forth  proceedings  by  the  church  constitut- 
ing a  precedent,  which,  in  some  later  chapters  of  our  his- 
tory, will  be  appealed  to,  especially  by  our  General  As- 
sembly, for  some  additional  usurpation  of  larger  and  more 
unconstitutional  authority.  The  lesson  of  this  contro- 
versy should  be  well  studied  by  our  church. 

My  third  comment  on  this  history  is,  that  there  is  now 
no  intelligent  man,  whether  believer  or  unbeliever  in  the 
Bible,  but  acknowledges  that  the  history  of  this  globe  an- 
tedates very  far  that  of  any  of  its  present  inhabitants. 
There  are  also  a  great  company  of  intelligent  men,  of  both 
classes,  who  hold  that  the  antecedent  history  of  this  earth 
is  on  some  points  traceable  through  immeasurable  pe- 
riods, and  is  written  by  the  hand  of  God  himself,  clear 
enough  for  them  to  read.  God  has,  therefore,  written  two 
books  for  men  to  read ;  but  it  is  a  most  significant  fact 
that  neither  one  of  these  books  makes  any  reference  to 
the  other,  and  that  while  one  of  them  has  been  progres- 
sively made  known  to  men  during  many  past  centuries, 


658  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

the  pages  of  the  other  have  been  opened  only  of  recent 
years.  It  is  true  the  Bible  says  God  is  kno^vn  by  the 
works  of  his  hands.  Moses  tells  ns  that  he  created  the 
sun  and  the  moon  and  also  the  stars.  David  says,  "The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament 
showeth  his  handiwork."  The  stars,  he  says,  have  no 
speech,  yet  their  words  are  heard  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  Psalmist  also  frequently  describes  the  terrible 
storms  of  thunder  and  lightning,  in  which  God  speaks  to 
men.  Solomon,  the  wisest  of  men,  spake  of  trees,  from 
the  cedar  tree  that  is  in  Lebanon  even  unto  the  hyssop 
that  springeth  out  of  the  wall ;  he  spake  also  of  beasts, 
and  of  fowl,  and  of  creeping  things,  and  of  fishes.  Peter 
tells  of  the  world  that  once  was,  having  perished,  being 
overflowed  with  water,  but  says  that  the  world  that  now 
is,  is  kept  in  store  to  be  destroyed  by  fire.  Paul  says  that 
the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world 
are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  so  that  the 
heathen  are  without  excuse.  But  Moses  and  David  di- 
rected the  gaze  of  man  up  to  the  stars,  and  it  entered  not 
into  the  mind  of  either  of  these  to  speak  of  what  is  writ- 
ten in  the  depths  of  the  earth.  Solomon's  studies  of  na- 
ture were  evidently  confined  to  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
Peter  does  not  tell  us  that  the  final  conflagration  is  to 
come  from  w^ithin ;  while  Paul  only  says  that  God's- 
visible  works  clearly  pointed  at  his  invisible  power  and 
Godhead.  Mankind  have  been  dwelling  on  this  globe 
for  at  least  six  thousand  years,  and  from  the  very  begin- 
ning God  has  been  communicating  with  them,  but  only 
about  his  law  and  their  duty.  Ilis  written  word  sets 
forth  to  men  only  their  own  apostasy  and  his  wondrous 
and  glorious  plan  for  their  reconciliation  to  him.  He 
puts  into  the  hand  of  his  church  an  inspired  volume,  out 
of  which  she  is  to  teach  men  all  they  need  to  know  at 
present  about  him  and  their  own  duty,  but  nothing  else. 
About  the  countless  mysteries  of  nature  and  the  secrets 
of  science  he  gives  her  not  one  word  of  instruction,  nor 
can  she  teach  men  a  word  on  those  subjects. 

What  a  significant  fact  it  is,  that  for  at  least  fifty-five 
centuries  all  God's  instructions  to  man  related  to  the  one- 


CONTROVERSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  659 

theme,  our  ruin  bv  the  first  xVdam  and  our  redemption  by 
the  second,  and  that  only  some  four  hundred  years  ago 
the  Creator  thought  proper  to  let  mankind,  but  not  the 
church,  find  out  that  the  world  is  not  a  flat  plane,  but  a 
round  globe.  Meanwhile,  at  least  five  great  world  em- 
pires had  risen  and  successively  ruled,  till  one  by  one  they 
perished ;  and  great  systems  of  philosophy  had  risen,  and 
Avere  taught  by  deep,  if  not  always  right,  thinkers ;  and 
yet  the  earth  on  which  they  dwelt  was  altogether  unknown 
to  any  of  these,  even  as  to  its  external  shape.  The  same 
is  true  as  to  the  heavenly  bodies.  These  deep  thinkers 
considered  the  earth  to  be  the  centre  of  all  these  stars,  and 
not  until  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation  was  it  made  known 
to  men,  but  not  the  church,  by  the  Creator  that  the  earth 
was  a  mere  planet  of  our  solar  system,  revolving  daily  on 
its  own  axis,  and  also  revolving  round  the  sun,  and  that 
the  starry  heavens  presented  to  their  eye  millions  of  great 
revolving  globes.  They  all  believed,  and  even  the  in- 
spired Psalmist  was  allowed  by  the  Almighty  so  to  rep- 
resent the  case,  as  that  the  sun  was  as  a  bridegroom  com- 
ing every  morning  out  of  his  chamber,  and  rejoicing  like 
a  strong  man  to  run  his  daily  race  round  this  little  earth. 
But  how  or  through  what  teacher  did  these  facts  of 
science  come  at  last  to  be  made  known  to  men  ?  Did  the 
Creator  send  a  prophet  or  an  apostle  to  make  them 
known  ?  Did  such  a  messenger  communicate  them  to  the 
church,  that  the  church  might  teach  men  these  things  ? 
l\o,  indeed !  The  church  that  then  was,  bitterly  de- 
nounced these  discoveries  of  science.  She  compelled 
Galileo  by  force  to  deny  what  he  had  found  out  to  be  true, 
and  poor  Copernicus  only  published  what  he  had  found 
out  when  sure  that  death  would  immediately  deliver  him 
from  the  Inquisition.  Why  was  not  the  church  made  the 
discoverer  of  the  new  chemistry  ?  Why  was  not  steam 
revealed  to  the  church,  and  electricity,  in  all  their  won- 
derful power  and  adaptations  ?  It  is  in  no  sense  the  prov- 
ince of  the  church  to  make  discoveries  or  inventions  in  the 
kingdom  of  nature;  hers  is  a  different  sphere,  although 
her  sons,  as  such,  are  privileged  as  individual  men  to 
study  art  and  science,  and  proclaim  what  they  have 
learned. 


coo  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

Is  it  any  wonder  now  that  not  till  some  fifty  or  sixty 
years  ago  was  the  church  allowed  to  understand  that  days 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  did  not  mean  periods  of 
twenty-four  hours  each,  and  is  it  any  wonder  if  she  has 
remained  ignorant  till  this  day  that  the  dust  out  of  which 
Adam  was  created  was  not  necessarily  the  humble  and 
insignificant  material  which  we  call  by  that  name  ? 

A  fourth  comment.  Here  is  something  presented  to 
our  thoughtful  consideration.  The  Bible  does  not  teach, 
and  was  not  given  to  teach,  science,  but  something  alto- 
gether different  from  science,  viz.,  religion ;  and  yet  the 
Creator  allows  men  who  may  not  at  all  be  his  people  to  be 
the  first  to  find  out  some  of  the  secrets  of  science,  that  is, 
of  nature.  In  our  own  age  a  great  and  long-hidden  secret 
is  allowed  to  be  found  out  by  one  not  a  Christian  himself, 
nor  the  son  of  a  Christian,  but  quite  the  contrary.  A 
revelation  written  on  rocks  is  shown  first  to  him.  As 
usual,  the  church  at  once  denounces  as  infidelity  what  he 
found  out  and  proclaimed,  and  confirms  her  denunciation 
from  the  fact  that  he  is  himself  an  unbeliever.  But  on 
what  ground  does  she  denounce  this  new  hypothesis,  to- 
gether with  its  author,  as  infidel  ?  I^ot  because  it  conflicts 
with  revealed  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  but  that  it  is  con- 
trary to  their  translation  of  one  special  statement  con- 
tained in  very  few  words. 

Searching  to  discover  wdiat  makes  men  so  very  fierce  in 
their  condemnation  of  and  opposition  to  this  newly- 
discovered  truth,  I  have  concluded  it  is  pride.  Shakes- 
peare makes  Cardinal  Wolsey  say  to  his  servant :  ^'Croni- 
well,  I  charge  thee,  fiing  away  ambition ;  by  that  sin  fell 
the  angels."  Now,  ambition  is  pride's  twin  sister.  If 
we  accept  Milton's  suggestion,  we  shall  be  ready  to  admit 
that  what  touches  our  pride  is  somewhat  like  that  which 
stirred  the  same  passion  in  the  evil  angels.  He  makes 
Satan,  addressing  his  fallen  hosts,  tell  them : 

"There  went  a  fame  in  heaven,  that  he  ere  long 
Intended  to  create  ...  a  generation  whom 
His  choice  regard  should  favor  equal  to  the  sons  of  heaven." 

What  those  evil  spirits  could  not  bear  was  that  the  new 
race  of  men,  ^'though  less  in  power  and  excellence,  were, 


COI^TROVEESIES  OF  SCIENCE.  661 

like  to  lis,  the  sons  of  heaven,  and  were  to  have  an  equal 
share  of  heaven's  favor."  And  just  so  the  men  of  this 
nineteenth  century  are  mortified  at  the  assertion  of  its 
being  probably  true  that  the  body  of  our  first  father  had 
close  relationship  to  the  lower  animals. 

But,  unquestionably,  man,  as  to  his  body,  is  an  animal. 
The  whole  structure  of  his  frame,  every  organ,  every 
function  proves  this,  and  we  are  therefore  allied  plainly 
and  distinctly  through  our  bodies  to  the  lower  animals. 
They  are  our  poor  kin.  Accordingly,  we  are  ashamed  of 
them ;  and  yet  they  are  the  handiwork  of  our  glorious 
Creator  as  truly  as  our  own  bodies.  Upon  many  of  them 
he  bestows  as  much  grace  and  beauty  as  belongs  to  the 
human  race.  In  them,  as  in  every  other  thing  which  he 
created,  we  see  much  to  admire.  His  divine  skill  and 
divine  goodness  he  portrays  in  them  all,  whether  brute  or 
bird  or  fish  or  reptile,  and  there  is  not  one  of  them  which 
man,  who  is  only  one  of  God's  other  creatures,  has  any 
right  to  despise.  Look  at  the  faithful  dog,  man's  inti- 
mate friend  in  every  age.  Look  at  the  patient,  laborious 
ox.  Look  at  the  gentle  sheep.  Look  at  the  honest,  docile, 
beautiful,  noble  horse.  Look  at  any  one  of  the  brute  crea- 
tion, and  behold  in  it  God's  handiwork,  and  let  your 
grateful  reverence  for  him  subjugate  your  pride  of  race. 

But,  what  is  more,  it  is  by  these  despised  kin  of  ours 
our  life  from  day  to  day  is  supported.  Look  at  that  man 
who  weighs  two  hundred  pounds.  What  is  all  that  flesh 
of  his  ?  It  is  just  beef,  mutton  and  pork.  From  the  day 
he  ceased  to  get  his  nourishment  from  his  mother's  breasts 
he  has  been  fed  from  the  bodies  of  his  poor  kin.  Can  it 
be  denied  that  he  is  closely  related  to  them  ?  How  foolish 
and  how  shameful  that  pride  of  his  which  makes  him  deny 
the  relationship ! 

But,  most  of  all,  there  is  not  one  of  all  these  our  fellow 
creatures  but  obeys,  and  from  the  beginning  of  its  being 
always  has  obeyed,  every  one  of  God's  laws.  It  is  only 
man  that  has  sinned,  become  an  apostate  like  the  fallen 
angels,  and  yet,  just  like  the  fallen  angels,  he  is  too  proud 
to  acknowledge  the  comparative  position  of  his  body 
amongst  the  creatures  of  God. 

The  last  comment  I  shall  oifer  on  this  history  relates  to 


662  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

what  seems  to  me  a  very  small  question,  unhappily  mag- 
nified into  a  very  great  one.  That  question  is,  what  does 
the  word  "dust"  necessarily  mean.  If  it  is  true,  as  Dr. 
Lyon  said  (see  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  XII., 
page  188  et  seq.),  that  there  is  a  revelation  by  God  in  his 
works  as  well  as  in  his  word — a  revelation  not  of  his  grace 
and  mercy,  but  of  his  goodness,  wisdom  and  power — and 
that  this  revelation  which  God  makes  of  himself  in  na- 
ture is  just  as  authoritative,  just  as  infallible  in  its  utter- 
ances, as  far  as  they  go,  and  just  as  much  needs  a  com- 
petent expounder,  as  that  other  great  volume  which  is 
called  the  Bible;  and  if  this  revelation  which  God  has 
written  in  rock  seems  to  prove  that  Adam's  body  was 
formed  out  of  some  already  organized  material,  and  not 
out  of  what  we  call  dust,  then  it  seems  to  me  that  this 
testimony  should  have  great  weight  in  determining  what 
is  the  true  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  aphar.  It 
certainly  gives  a  good  ground  for  questioning  whether 
we  have  that  word  correctlv  translated  in  our  English 
Bible. 

It  has  been  very  common  in  this  controversy  to  set  forth 
one  view  as  worthy  to  be  accepted  because  honorable  to 
Adam's  body,  but  the  other  as  deserving  of  our  rejection 
and  abhorrence,  as  dishonoring  to  the  bodily  frame  of  our 
first  ancestor.  Where  lies  the  superiority?  If  the  Al- 
mighty chose  to  make  use,  in  forming  Adam's  body,  of 
organic  matter  descending  from  a  long  line  of  animal 
creatures,  the  indirect  work  of  his  own  hand,  how  shall  we 
dare  represent  it  as  dishonorable  ?  His  work  is  always 
honorable.  All  the  glory  there  is  in  our  being  created  at 
all  is  that  we  are  the  work  of  God's  hands ;  what  material 
he  chose  to  employ  is  of  no  importance  whatsoever. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  very  shocking,  as  bordering 
upon  profaneness,  for  any  to  insist  that  there  is  no  other 
possible  way  in  which  we  can  lawfully  conceive  of  the 
precise  material  of  which  Adam's  body  was  created  by 
the  Almighty  than  that  he  must  needs  have  taken  some 
dirt  of  the  ground,  whether  clay  or  sand  or  both,  or 
whether  literal  niinate  dust,  and  proceeded  to  operate 
with  this  particular  material,  as  if  he  was  at  all  dependent 
on  the  material  used  in  the  construction  of  man.     Can  we 


COIN^TEOVEKSIES  OF  SCIENCE.  663 

be  so  sure  of  the  meaning  liere  of  that  one  Hebrew  word 
which  we  translate  by  the  English  word  diist,  as  to  war- 
rant us  in  thus  limiting  our  Creator  ? 

Let  us  look  at  the  one  hundred  and  third  Psalm.  The 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  verses  say:  ''Like  as  a  father 
pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear 
him.  For  he  knoweth  our  frame  ;  he  remembereth  that 
we  are  dust."  The  idea  is,  that  God  pities  us,  knowing 
our  weakness ;  he  knows  our  frame  and  of  what  he  has 
made  us  ;  he  remembers  that  we  are  dust.  The  statement 
is  of  the  whole  family  of  man.  Must  we  understand  that 
all  men,  as  they  now  exist,  are  literal  dust  ?  If  not,  why 
must  we  understand  that  in  Genesis  ii.  7,  the  Lord  God 
formed  man  out  of  literal  dust  ?  Our  Saviour  says  he  was 
a  foolish  man  that  built  his  house  upon  the  sand.  Will 
dust  prove  a  more  solid  foundation  than  sand  for  those 
who  build  on  that  word  their  sho^v)'  edifice  of  scripture 
exposition  and  logical  argumentation  ? 

We  know  that  there  are  various  lawful  interpretations 
of  the  Hebrew  word  aphar.  Among  them  is  the  English 
word  ''dust."  But  it  will  not  do  to  insist  that  this  par- 
ticular interpretation,  or  any  other,  of  the  Hebrew  word 
must  always  be  understood  literally,  or  that  it  must 
always  be  understood  in  one  unvarying  sense  all  through 
the  scriptures.  Our  Saviour  said,  "These  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  fire."  Must  we  understand  literal  fire  ? 
Perhaps  there  is  not  one  of  us  who  would  insist  that  we 
must  so  understand  this  word  as  here  used  by  him.  The 
Saviour  said,  "The  damsel  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth" ; 
but,  indeed,  she  was  dead,  else  there  had  been  no  miracle. 
Are  we  going  to  understand  the  Saviour  as  meaning  to 
affirm  that  she  was  not  really  dead  ?  He  was  only  using 
that  word  in  an  unusual  sense.  The  apostle  tells  us  God 
is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  our  God.  Is  the  Almighty 
capable  of  being  ashamed,  or  does  Paul  make  an  unmean- 
ing assertion  ? 

But  we  shall  be  told  all  these  are  only  figures  of  speech. 
If  that  be  so,  then  why  is  not  Genesis  ii.  7  another  figure 
of  speech?  And  are  we  to  build  doctrine  upon  a  mere 
figurative  expression,  and  that  only  once  used  in  the  whole 
Bible  ? 


QCA  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

I  here  append  some  extracts  of  a  letter  to  me  from  Dr. 
Woodrow,  of  date  March  18,  1898,  which  should  interest 
the  reader,  as  showing  precisely  what  he  understood  by 
teaching  "the  relation  or  connection  between  the  scrip- 
tures and  natural  science." 

Evolution  had  not  been  much  discussed  before  I  came  to  Colum- 
bia; but  I  always  briefly  set  forth  the  views  of  Lamarck  and  the 
Vestiges  of  Creation  fairly,  and  gave  my  reasons  for  not  accepting 
them.  So,  in  later  years,  in  the  Seminary,  long  before  1884,  I  dis- 
cussed the  subject  of  evolution,  giving  my  opinion  at  the  close  of 
each  discussion  that  the  reasons  in  its  favor  were  insufficient.  But 
for  years  I  taught  that  it  made  no  difl'erence  to  us,  as  believers  in 
the  Bible,  whether  it  was  true  or  not ;  that  the  Bible,  rightly  under- 
stood, was  silent  on  the  subject. 

While  preparing  the  address  I  had  consented  to  deliver  in  1884, 
I  of  course  reviewed  the  whole  matter  most  carefully  for  months.  I 
was  more  fully  convinced  than  ever  that  the  Bible  is  silent,  and  that 
it  therefore  makes  not  the  least  difference  whether  we  accept  evolu- 
tion as  true  or  reject  it  as  foolishly  absurd.  But  at  the  same  time, 
the  evidence  forced  me  to  change  my  opinion  that  it  was  not  true  to 
the  opinion  that  it  is  probably  true.  That  is  the  change  I  refer  to 
in  my  address ;    that,  and  that  alone. 

I  now  regard  the  doctrine,  as  defined  in  my  address,  as  established 
as  completely  as  the  doctrine  of  gravitation.  And  I  see  more  and 
more  clearly  the  complete  silence  of  the  Bible  on  this  and  many 
kindred  subjects  on  which  it  has  been  supposed  to  speak  plainly. 


Here  ends  abruptly  the  work  that  engaged  the  last  two 
years  of  the  writer's  life.  Most  assiduously  did  he  strive 
to  finish  what  he  had  mapped  out  as  the  work  he  had  to  do. 
But  God,  in  his  inscrutable  wisdom,  had  predetermined 
otherwise,  and  so  the  chapter  on  the  "Revised  Book  of 
Discipline"  will  never  be  written,  nor  that  part  on  "Provi- 
dential Dealings,"  wdiich  was  so  near  his  heart,  because 
he  wanted  his  children  and  his  grandchildren  to  know 
how  goodness  and  mercy  had  followed  him  all  the  days  of 
his  life,  and  when  all  his  means  of  support  were  swept 
away  by  a  failure  that  involved  great  loss  to  his  whole 
family  connection,  just  at  that  particular  time  a  legacy 


'  CONCLUSIOiS^.  665 

came  to  his  wife  so  unexpectedly,  which  proved  the  prom- 
ise that  "to  him  who  hath  left  house,  or  parents,  or  breth- 
ren, or  wife,  or  children,  for  the  kingdom  of  God's  sake, 
shall  receive  manifold  more  in  this  present  time  and  in 
the  world  to  come  life  everlasting." 

With  failing  sight,  he  depended  greatly  on  others  for 
aid  in  this  work,  but  with  wonderful  energy  and  execu- 
tion, he  accomplished  nearly  the  whole  of  what  he  wished 
so  ardently  to  do.  Those  who  watched  around  his  couch 
wished  they  could  hear  his  voice  speaking  in  anticipation 
of  the  joys  they  knew  awaited  him;  but  this  he  did  not 
refer  to,  except  to  say,  in  an  early  stage  of  his  sickness, 
"In  either  event,  it  is  all  right."  His  life  was  a  sufficient 
testimony  to  his  faith  in  God.  Oftentimes  he  would  be 
heard  to  say,  "Master,  Master,  come  quickly,  come  to- 
day;" and  "shorten  these  days  of  suffering."  And  so, 
knowino"  how  he  dreaded  a  lona;  illness,  and  havino;  often 
heard  him  say  he  felt  as  did  Bishop  Elliott  on  that  sub- 
ject, and  it  was  his  daily  prayer  to  be  spared  a  long,  lin- 
gering illness,  w^e  who  stood  there  with  uplifted  eyes  saw 
him  ascending  to  heaven,  with  a  kind  of  joyful  feeling. 
His  "spirit  is  with  Christ ;"  and  our  hope  is  in  God. 


APPEI^DIX  A. 


The  following  particulars  are  taken  from  a  statement 
published  by  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  ]\I.  of  the  condition  of  their 
missions  among  the  Armenians  in  the  year  1896.  It 
^eeras  to  me  these  are  very  splendid  results  of  a  work  of 
only  three-score  or  more  of  years  under  circumstances  in 
many  respects  adverse. 

Missions  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  i:s"  Turkey. 

These  missions  are  three  in  number,  viz. : 

The  Western  Turkey  Mission,  with  stations  at  Con- 
stantinople, Brusa,  Smyrna,  Trebizond,  Marsovan,  Ciesa- 
rea  and  Sivas,  and  one  hundred  and  four  out-stations; 
American  missionaries  residing  at  three  of  the  out- 
stations. 

The  Central  Turkey  Mission,  with  stations  at  Aintab 
and  Marash,  and  forty-five  out-stations ;  American  mis- 
sionaries residing  at  four  of  the  out-stations. 

The  Eastern  Turkey  Mission,  w^ith  stations  at  Bitlis, 
Erzroom,  Harpoot,  Mardin  and  Van,  and  one  hundred 
and  nineteen  out-stations. 

In  these  three  Armenian  missions  there  are  about  one 
hundred  and  forty-three  missionaries,  of  whom  about  one 
hundred  are  female  missionary  assistants. 

The  property  owned  by  the  board,  and  held  in  trust 
by  its  missionaries  in  Turkey,  chiefly  consisting  of  school 
and  chapel  buildings  and  residences,  with  their  sites  and 
general  equipments,  represents  a  value  of  about  $050,000. 

The  missionary  work  has  four  chief  regular  depart- 
ments, viz.,  the  Publication,  the  Educational,  the  Evan- 
gelistic and  the  Medical  work;  also  an  occasional,  and 
often  most  important  department,  viz.,  that  of  Relief,  in 
times  of  famine,  pestilence,  or  persecution. 

The  work  is  prosecuted  in  the  use,  chiefly,  of  four  na- 


668  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMES. 

tive  languages,  viz.,  the  Armenian,  the  Turhish,  the  B id- 
gar  ian  and  the  Greek;  while  English  is  largely  used  in 
the  colleges,  seminaries  and  high  schools. 

About  one-half  of  the  whole  number  of  these  mission- 
aries to  the  Armenians  are  preaching  the  gospel ;  of  the 
remainder,  three,  that  is  to  say,  one  to  each  of  the  three 
missions,  are  employed  in  translating  and  press  work; 
several  more  are  medical  missionaries,  and  the  rest  are 
professors  in  the  colleges  and  seminaries  of  the  missions. 

The  business  transactions  of  the  mission  treasurer 
cover  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  million  dollars  a  year  in 
ordinary  times,  while  the  amount,  the  current  year,  will 
reach  fully  half  a  million,  owing  to  the  relief  work. 

I.  The  issues  of  the  press  include  four  weekly  and  four 
monthly  papers,  Sunday-school  lessons  in  four  languages, 
school  books,  commentaries,  and  a  large  number  of  tracts 
covering  a  wide  range  of  subjects.  Of  these  there  were 
printed,  in  1894,  in  Armenian,  1,283  pages,  76,245 
copies;    in  Armeno-Turkish,  1,650  pages,  63,092  copies. 

The  several  versions  and  editions  of  the  Bible  circu- 
lated in  the  various  languages  by  the  Bible  societies  were 
translated  and  put  through  the  press  by  missionaries  of 
the  board,  aided  by  competent  native  scholars. 

II.  Educational  Work:  Robert  College  is  on  an  inde- 
pendent foundation,  and  not  included  in  the  list  below. 

In  the  three  missions  there  are  three  theological  semi- 
naries, and  forty-eight  colleges  and  high  schools  for  both 
sexes. 

Of  the  five  colleges,  two  are  for  boys  and  two  for  girls, 
while  one  is  for  both  boys  and  girls,  the  work  being  con- 
ducted in  separate  departments.  These  colleges  are  the 
American  College  for  Girls  in  Scutari  (Constantinople), 
the  Harpoot  Euphrates  College,  the  Central  Turkey  Col- 
lege at  Aintab,  Anatolia  College  at  Marsovan,  and  the 
College  for  Girls  at  Marash. 

About  half  the  high  schools  are  of  really  high  grade, 
under  the  direct  care  of  American  college  graduates.  The 
others  are  rather  grammar  than  high  schools,  under  na- 
tive control  and  instruction,  containing  promise  of  rapid 
growth,  provided  the  condition  of  the  country  permits 
their  successful  continuance. 


APPENDIX  A. 


669 


The  number  of  pupils  in  these  higher  schools,  accord- 
ing to  the  last  report,  is  2,576,  about  equally  divided  be- 
tween the  sexes. 

In  the  common  schools,  now  generally  under  native 
control,  there  are  16,035  pupils,  and  there  are  1,862  per- 
sons under  instruction,  not  in  schools.  Total  under  in- 
struction in  the  three  missions,  20,496.  The  whole  num- 
ber of  native  teachers  is  564. 

III.  Medical  work  in  these  missions  has  not  had  so 
large  a  place  as  in  some  other  missions  of  the  board. 
Medical  missionaries,  in  the  earlier  years,  formed  classes 
of  pupils  in  medicine,  who  generally  completed  their 
studies  in  schools  in  the  United  States  or  Great  Britain; 
and  the  number  of  competent  native  physicians  is  now 
large.  At  Aintab,  a  well-organized  hospital,  as  well  as 
other  medical  work,  is  now  carried  on,  while  at  Csesarea, 
!Mardin,  and  Van,  hospital  work  has  been  successfully 
commenced. 

IV.  B^vangelistic  Work  and  the  Churches :  This  work 
has  always  been  regarded  as  of  supreme  importance,  and 
has  enlisted  a  large  part  of  the  missionary  force.  It  is 
also  the  work  to  be  earliest  and  most  fully  passed  over 
into  native  hands,  as  regards  responsible  administration 
and  control.  The  smaller  churches  still  receive  aid  from 
the  board.  The  present  number  of  churches  is  125,  of 
members,  12,7cS7. 

The  places  for  stated  preaching  are  about  three  hun- 
dred, the  congregations  amounting  in  general  to  some 
thirty  thousand  people,  ordained  native  preachers  nearly 
one  hundred,  unordained  preachers  about  the  same  num- 
ber. 

j^ative  contributions  in  1S94  for  all  purposes,  i.  e., 
church,  school,  and  general  benevolence,  were  $67,237. 

Thousands  of  non-Protestants  attend  our  schools  and 
colleges,  and  come  to  our  places  of  worship.  Tens  of 
thousands  of  persons  from  the  different  races  and  creeds 
continually  read  our  publications.  Hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  destitute  persons  this  very  year  are  aided  to  food 
and  clothing,  and  while  overwhelmed  by  unexampled  and 
immeasurable  calamity,  are  pointed  to  the  consolations 


670  MY  LIFE  AIS^D  TIMES. 

of  the  g(3spel  in  connection  with  relief  work,  hirgely  ad- 
ministered by  the  hands  of  missionaries  and  their  agents. 

Supplementary. 

Christian   Worl-  hy  Americans  and  their  Native  Asso- 
ciates in  Constantinople. 

The  jDrincipal  centres  are  The  Bible  House,  Robert 
College,  the  American  College  for  Girls,  and  the  Woman's 
Board  Mission  House  at  Gedik  Pasha  in  the  city,  with 
similar  houses  at  Hasskeny  and  at  Scutari. 

The  Bible  House. 

The  Bible  House  is  a  group  of  three  buildings  in  the 
heart  of  the  city,  costing  a  trifle  mider  $100,000.  It  is 
the  centre  of  the  work  of  the  American  Bible  Society^ 
Kev.  jM.  Bowen,  agent,  and  of  the  missions  of  the  Amer- 
ican Board,  W.  W.  Peet,  Esq.,  treasurer.  The  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  also  has  its  work  centred  here. 
Books,  bound  and  unbound,  are  always  stored  in  the  Bible 
House,  of  value  exceeding  $150,000. 

In  a  commodious  chapel  on  the  premises,  divine  service 
is  held  every  Sunday  at  9  o'clock  a.  m.  in  Greek,  at 
10:30  A.  M.  in  Turkish,  and  at  3  p.  ii.  the  Armenian 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  holds  its  meeting.  Xative  pastors  conduct 
the  morning  services,  and  a  layman  leads  the  afternoon 
meeting. 

Other  Sunday  services  are  as  follows:  Sunday-school 
at  Gedik  Pasha  under  the  care  of  the  ladies  of  the  W.  B. 
M.  at  noon,  Sunday-school  at  Hasskeny  at  3.  p.  m.^  Sun- 
day-school at  Scutari  at  3  p.  m. 

Preaching  services  at  the  Dutch  Chai)el,  Pcra,  0 
o'clock  A.  :m.  in  Armenian ;  at  the  Swedish  ChajDcl,  Pcra, 
9  A.  M.  in  Greek ;  at  Scutari,  9  a.  :m.  in  Armenian ;  at 
Hasskeny,  10  a.  m.  in  Armenian  ;  at  Gedik  Pasha,  10  a.  m. 
in  Armenian;  at  Koom-Kapoo,  5  p.  m.  in  Greek;  6  p.  m. 
in  Turkish  ;  at  President's  House,  Pobert  College,  3  p.  m. 
in  Armenian;  at  Boyadjikeny,  8  p.  m.  in  Armenian;  at 
Robert  College,  10:45  a.  m.  in  English;  at  the  College 
for  Girls,  11-^30  a.  m.  in  English ;  at  Bcbck,  11 :30  a.  m. 
in  English. 


appendix  a.  671 

Egbert  College. 

Rev.  George  Washburn,  D.  D.,  President. 

This  institution  was  established  by  the  mnnificence  of 
Mr.  C.  R.  Robert,  of  Xew  York,  and  is  now  in  its  thirty- 
third  year.  It  has  property  and  endowments  amounting 
to  about  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars.  Its 
pupils  the  current  year  number  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
two.  There  are  eight  professors  and  fifteen  other  in- 
structors. Its  pupils  come  chiefly  from  the  the  three  na- 
tionalities, Armenian,  Bulgarian,  and  Greek,  and  its  in- 
fluence in  all  these  nationalities  has  been  very  great. 

The  American  College  for  Girls  at  Scutari. 
Miss  Alary  M.  Patrick,  President. 

This  college  looks  back  over  twenty-five  years  of  edu- 
cational work.  It  began  as  a  high  school,  known  as  "The 
Home,"  in  1871,  and  received  its  college  charter  in  1890. 
It  has  sent  out  one  hundred  and  eight  alumna3  of  nine 
nationalities,  viz.,  Armenian,  Bulgarian,  Greek,  English, 
American,  Israelite,  Turkish,  Danish,  and  Albanian. 
Sixty  of  these  have  engaged  in  teaching,  and  several 
others  have  entered  upon  various  independent  careers. 
The  college  has  sent  out  also  a  large  number  of  teachers, 
not  numbered  among  its  alumnse.  The  college  possesses 
an  Trade  from  H.  I.  M.,  the  Sultan. 

The  college  oilers  three  full  courses  of  study,  scientific, 
literary,  and  classical.  The  faculty  numbers  six  Ameri- 
can professors,  and  fifteen  other  instructors.  The  num- 
ber of  pupils  the  current  year  is  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
five. 

Work  of  the  Ladies  Representing  the  W.  B.  M. 

At  each  of  the  centres  of  the  work  of  the  W.  B.  M.,  viz., 
at  Gedik  Pasha,  at  Hasskeny  and  at  Scutari,  are  large 
Sunday-schools,  and  flourishing  day  schools  with  two  or 
more  departments — seven  teachers  and  two  hundred  pu- 
pils at  Gedik  Pasha — while  household  visitation,  general 
and  woman's  prayer-meetings,  personal  work  and  evening 
schools,  are  parts  of  the  efforts  of  the  seven  ladies  engaged 


672  MY  LIFE  AND  TIMKS. 

in  this  work.  The  Kindergarten  at  llasskeny  has  nearly 
fifty  pupils,  and  is  almost  self-supporting.  At  Scutari 
instruction  is  free,  is  designed  to  reach  the  poor,  and  the 
number  instructed  in  one  or  more  classes  is  one  hundred 
and  seventy.  The  Koom-Kapoo  Rest  is  under  the  care 
of  the  ladies  at  Gedik  Pasha. 

Educational,  Woek  at  Adabazar  and  Bardezag. 

The  large  village  of  Bardezag  and  the  town  of  Adaba- 
zar are  hardly  within  the  Constantinople  radius,  although 
in  the  same  station.  Two  of  our  most  prosperous  educa- 
tional institutions  are  found  at  these  places,  viz.,  the 
Bithynia  High  School  for  Boys,  with  one  hundred  and 
twenty-seven  pupils,  at  Bardezag,  under  the  care  of  Rev. 
R.  Chambers ;  and  the  High  School  for  Girls,  at  Adaba- 
zar, a  successful  native  enterprise,  with  seventy-nine  pu- 
pils, under  the  care  of  Miss  Laura  Farnham,  with  two 
American  associates. 

Testimony  from  Two  of  My  Old  Colleagues. 

My  old  colleague,  Dr.  Hamlin,  writes  me  from  Lexing- 
ton, Mass.,  of  date  October  18,  1897,  concerning  the  meet- 
ing of  the  American  Board  the  preceding  September : 
^'We  had  a  most  excellent  meeting  at  Kew  Haven.  There 
were  never  so  many  conversions,  never  so  many  revivals, 
never  so  much  spontaneous  effort  of  the  native  churches 
— all  which  is  very  encouraging.  In  the  bloody  fields  of 
Turkey,  missionary  work  was  never  so  prosperous  in 
spiritual  results.  Schools  and  churches  full,  Gregorians 
[such  is  the  name  of  the  old  Armenian  Church  from  the 
name  of  their  apostle,  Gregory  the  Enlightener]  and 
Protestants  mingling  without  any  signs  of  difference. 
The  Armenians,  Protestant  and  Gregorian,  are  sternly 
resolved  that  Sultan  Ham  id  shall  not  relegate  them  to 
ignorance  and  barbarism." 

My  old  colleague.  Dr.  Elias  Riggs,  of  Constantinople, 
wrote  to  me  thus,  April  7,  1897 :  '"We  have  already  seen 
wonderfully  good  results  from  the  awful  trial  through 
which  the  Armenians  are  passing.  Think  of  a  Protestant 
pastor    in    Aintab    preaching   statedly    in    a    Gregorian 


APPENDIX  B. 


6Y3 


■cliiireh  to  congregations  of  from  fifteen  hundred  to  three 
thousand,  and  of  Gregorians  and  Protestants  in  Oorfa 
and  many  other  places  uniting  in  the  management  of 
schools,  orphanages,  Sunday-schools  and  public  worship, 
-and  the  Armenian  Patriarch  and  the  Catholicos  of  Etch- 
miadzin  acknowledging  that  the  Armenians  consider  the 
Protestants  as  their  best  friends." 


APPENDIX  B. 

In  the  year  1895,  Messrs.  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  of  Xew 
York,  published  a  work  entitled  The  Armenian  Crisis  in 
Turhey,  The  Massacre  of  1894^  its  Antecedents  and  Sig- 
nificance, by  Frederick  Davis  Greene,  M.  A.,  for  several 
years  a  resident  of  Armenia.  A  portion  of  this  volume 
consists  of  eighteen  letters  written  from  the  interior  of 
Armenia,  before  and  during  and  immediately  after  the 
massacre.  The  author  of  this  volume  thus  introduces 
them  into  his  volume:  ''These  letters  were  written  by 
men  who  subjected  themselves  to  personal  danger  by  put- 
ting such  statements  on  paper  and  sending  them  through 
the  Turkish  mails.  Several  of  the  documents  have  gotten 
through  Turkey  by  circuitous  routes,  in  some  instances 
having  been  sent  by  special  messenger  to  Persia,  and  so 
on  to  this  country.  Others  were  never  risked  in  the  Turk- 
ish mails,  but  have  come  through  the  British  post-office  at 
Constantinople." 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  no  writer  was  an  eye- 
witness of  the  actual  massacre ;  nor  could  he  have  been, 
inasmuch  as  the  whole  region  was  surrounded  by  a  mili- 
tary cordon  during  the  massacre,  and  for  months  after. 
The  letters  are  largely  based  on  the  testimony  of  refugees 
from  that  region,  or  of  Kurds  and  soldiers  who  partici- 
pated in  the  butchery,  and  who  had  no  hesitation  in 
speaking  about  the  affair  in  public  or  private  until  long 
after,  when  the  prospect  of  a  European  investigation 
sealed  their  lips.  Much  of  the  evidence  is,  therefore, 
essentially  first-hand,  having  been  obtained  from  eye- 
witnesses by  parties  in  the  vicinity  at  the  time,  who  are 


674  MY  LIFE  A:SD  Ti:ME.S. 

impartial,  tlioronglily  experienced  in  sifting-  Oriental  tes- 
timony, familiar  with  the  Turkish  and  Armenian  lan- 
guages, and  of  the  highest  veracity.  Ko  one  letter  would 
have  much  force  if  taken  alone,  for  it  might  be  a  large 
report  of  a  small  matter;  but  these  sixteen  letters  are 
written  independently  of  one  another,  at  different  times, 
and  from  seven  different  cities  widely  apart,  five  of  them 
forming  a  circle  around  the  scene  of  destruction.  The 
evidence  is  cumulative  and  overwhelming. 

There  is  absolute  unanimity  to  this  extent,  that  a 
gigantic  and  indescribably  horrible  massacre  of  Armen- 
ian men,  women  and  children  did  actually  take  place  in 
the  Sassoun  and  neighboring  regions  about  September 
1,  1894,  and  that,  too,  at  the  hands  of  Kurdish  troops 
armed  by  the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  as  well  as  of  regular  sol- 
diers sent  under  orders  from  the  same  source.  What 
those  orders  Avere  will  probably  never  transpire.  That 
they  were  executed  under  the  personal  direction  of  high 
Turkish  military  officers  is  clear.  There  can  also  be  no 
doubt — for  the  official  notice  from  the  palace  was  printed 
in  the  Constantinople  papers  in  November  last — that 
Zekki  Pasha,  commander  of  the  Fourth  Army  Corps,  who 
led  the  regular  troops  in  the  work  of  extermination,  has 
since  been  specially  honored  by  a  decoration  from  the 
Sultan,  who  was  also  pleased  to  send  silk  banners  to  the 
four  leading  Kurdish  chiefs  by  a  special  messenger. 

To  give  the  reader  an  adequate  idea  of  these  unques- 
tionably veritable  testimonies,  I  here  append  extracts 
from  Letter  6,  Letter  8,  and  Letter  9. 

FuoM  Lettek  Xo.  6. 

'^\t  first  the  Kourds  were  set  on,  and  the  troops  kept 
out  of  sight.  The  villagers  put  to  the  fight,  and  thinking 
they  had  only  the  Kourds  to  do  with,  repulsed  them  on 
several  occasions.  The  Kourds  were  unwilling  to  do  more 
imless  the  troops  assisted.  Some  of  the  troops  assumed 
Kourdish  dress,  and  helped  them  in  the  fight  with  more 
success.  Small  companies  of  troops  entered  several  vil- 
lages, saying  they  had  come  to  protect  them  as  loyal  sub- 
jects, and  were  quartered  among  the  houses.    In  the  night 


APPENDIX  B.  675 

they  arose  and  slew  the  sleeping  villagers,  man,  woman, 
and  child. 

Bj  this  time  those  in  other  villages  were  beginning  to 
feel  that  extermination  was  the  object  of  the  government, 
and  desi^eratelj  determined  to  sell  their  lives  as  dearly  as 
possible.  And  then  began  a  campaign  of  bntchery  that 
lasted  some  twenty-three  days,  or  roughly,  from  the  mid- 
dle of  August  to  the  middle  of  September.  The  Ferik 
Pasha  [Marshal  Zekki  Pasha] ,  who  came  post-haste  from 
Erzingan,  read  the  Sultan's  firman  for  extermination, 
and  theUj  hanging  the  document  on  his  breast,  exhorted 
the  soldiers  not  to  be  found  wanting  in  their  duty.  On 
the  last  day  of  August,  the  anniversary  of  the  Sultan's 
accession,  the  soldiers  ivere  especially  urged  to  distin- 
guish themselves,  and  they  made  it  the  day  of  the  greatest 
slaughter.  Another  marked  day  occurred  a  few  days 
earlier,  being  marked  by  the  occurrence  of  a  wonderful 
meteor. 

"]Sro  distinctions  were  made  between  persons  or  vil- 
lages as  to  whether  they  were  loyal  and  had  paid  their 
taxes  or  not.  The  orders  were  to  make  a  clean  sweep.  A 
priest  and  some  leading  men  from  one  village  went  out  to 
meet  an  officer,  taking  in  their  hands  their  tax  receipts, 
declaring  their  loyalty,  and  begging  for  mercy ;  but  the 
village  was  surrounded,  and  all  human  beings  put  to  the 
bayonet.  A  large  and  strong  man,  the  chief  of  one  vil- 
lage, was  captured  by  the  Kourds,  who  tied  him,  threw 
him  on  the  ground,  and  squatting  around  him,  stabbed 
him  to  pieces. 

"At  Galogozan  many  young  men  were  tied  hand  and 
foot,  laid  in  a  row,  covered  with  brushwood  and  burned 
alive.  Others  were  seized  and  hacked  to  death  piecemeal. 
At  another  village  a  priest  and  several  leading  men  were 
captured,  and  promised  release  if  they  would  tell  where 
others  had  fled,  but  after  telling,  all  but  the  priest  were 
killed.  A  chain  was  put  around  the  priest's  neck,  and 
pulled  from  opposite  sides  till  he  was  several  times 
choked  and  revived,  after  which  several  bayonets  were 
planted  upright,  and  he  raised  in  the  air  and  let  fall  upon 
them. 

"The  men  of  one  village,  when  fleeing,  took  the  women- 


670  ]MY  LIFK  AX!)  TIMES. 

and  children,  sonic  five  hundred  in  number,  and  placed 
tlicni  in  a  sort  of  grotto  in  a  ravine.  After  several  days 
the  soldiers  found  them,  and  butchered  those  who  had  not 
died  of  hunger. 

''Sixty  young  women  and  girls  were  selected  from  one 
village  and  placed  in  a  church,  when  t\w  soldiers  were 
ordered  to  do  with  them  as  they  liked,  after  which  they 
were  butchered. 

"In  another  village  fifty  choice  women  were  set  aside 
and  urged  to  change  their  faith  and  become  lianums  in 
Turkish  harems,  but  they  indignantly  refused  to  deny 
Christ,  preferring  the  fate  of  their  fathers  and  husbands. 
People  were  crowded  into  houses  which  were  then  set  on 
fire.  In  one  instance  a  little  boy  ran  out  of  the  flames, 
but  was  caught  on  a  bayonet  and  thrown  back. 

"Children  were  frequently  held  up  by  the  hair  and  cut 
in  two,  or  had  their  jaws  torn  apart ;  older  children  were 
pulled  apart  by  their  legs.  A  handsome,  newly-wedded 
couple  fled  to  a  hilltop ;  soldiers  followed,  and  told  them 
they  were  pretty,  and  would  be  spared  if  they  would 
accept  Islam ;  but  the  thought  of  the  horrible  death  they 
Tvnew  would  follow  did  not  prevent  them  from  confessing 
Christ. 

"The  last  stand  took  place  on  Mount  Andoke  [south  of 
Moosh],  where  some  thousand  persons  had  sought  refuge. 
The  Kourds  were  sent  in  relays  to  attack  them,  but  for 
ten  or  fifteen  days  were  unable  to  get  at  them.  The  sol- 
diers also  directed  the  fire  of  their  mountain  guns  on 
them,  doing  some  execution.  Finally,  after  the  besieged 
liad  been  without  food  for  several  days,  and  their  ammu- 
nition was  exhausted,  the  troops  succeeded  in  reaching 
the  summit  Avithout  any  loss,  and  let  scarcely  a  man 
•escape. 

"]Srow  all  turned  their  attention  to  those  who  had  been 
driven  into  the  Talvorecz  district.  Three  or  four  thou- 
sand of  the  besieged  were  left  in  this  small  plain.  When 
they  saw  themselves  thickly  surrounded  on  all  sides  by 
Turks  and  Kourds,  they  raised  their  hands  to  heaven 
with  an  agonizing  moan  for  deliverance.  They  were 
thinned  out  by  rifle  shots,  and  the  remainder  were  slaugh- 
tered with  bayonets  and  swords,  till  a  veritable  river  of 


APPENDIX  B. 


677 


blood  flowed  from  tlie  heaps  of  tlie  slain.     And  so  ended 
the  massacre." 

From  Letter  jSTo.  8. 

'•'The  Armenians,  oppressed  bv  Konrds  and  Tnrks, 
said,  'We  can't  pay  taxes  to  both  Kourds  and  the  govern- 
ment.' Plundered  and  oppressed  by  the  Kourds,  they  re- 
sisted them ;  there  were  some  killed.  Then  false  reports 
were  sent  to  Constantinople  that  the  Armenians  were  in 
arms,  in  rebellion.  Orders  were  sent  to  the  Mushire 
[commander-in-chief]  at  Erzingan  to  exterminate  them 
root  and  branch.  The  orders  read  before  the  army  col- 
lected in  haste  from  all  the  chief  cities  of  Eastern  Turkey 
was,  'Whoever  spares  man,  woman,  or  child  is  disloyal.' 

"The  region  was  surrounded  by  soldiers  of  the  army, 
and  twenty  thousand  Kourds  also  are  said  to  have  been 
massed  there.  Then  they  advanced  upon  the  centre,  driv- 
ing in  the  people  like  a  flock  of  sheep,  and  continued  thus 
to  advance  for  days.  No  quarter  was  given,  no  mercy 
shown.  Men,  women,  and  children  shot  down  or  butch- 
ered like  sheep.  Probably  when  they  were  set  upon  in 
this  way  some  tried  to  save  their  lives  and  resisted  in 
self-defence.  Many  who  could  fled  in  all  directions,  but 
the  majority  were  slain.  The  most  probable  estimate  is 
fifteen  thousand  killed^  thirty-five  villages  plundered, 
razed,  burnt. 

"Women  were  outraged  and  then  butchered;  a  priest 
taken  to  the  roof  of  his  church  and  hacked  to  pieces; 
young  men  piled  in  with  wood,  saturated  with  kerosene, 
and  set  on  fire ;  a  large  number  of  women  and  girls  col- 
lected in  church,  kept  for  days,  violated  by  the  brutal  sol- 
diers, and  then  murdered.  It  is  said  the  number  was  so 
large  that  the  blood  flowed  out  of  the  church  door.  Three 
soldiers  contended  over  a  beautiful  girl.  They  wanted  to 
preserve  her,  but  she  too  was  killed. 

"Every  efi^ort  is  being  made  and  will  be  made  to  falsify 
(excuse  the  blots,  emblematic  of  the  horrible  story)  the 
facts,  and  pull  the  wool  over  the  eyes  of  European  gov- 
ernments. But  the  bloody  tale  will  finally  be  known,  the 
most  horrible,  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  nineteenth  century 
has  known.     As  a  confirmation  of  the  report,  the  other 


'CTS  MY  LIFE  AlSiD  TIMES. 

day  several  hundred  soldiers  were  returning  from  the 
seat  of  war,  and  at  a  village  near  us  one  was  heard  to  say 
that  he  alone  with  his  own  hand  had  killed  thirty  preg- 
nant women.  Some  who  seem  to  have  some  shame  for 
their  atrocious  deeds  say,  'What  could  we  do;  we  were 
under  orders  V  " 

FiiOM  Letter  No.  9. 

"The  soldiers  who  went  from  here  talk  quite  freely 
about  matters  at  Sassoun.  A.  heard  one  talk  the  other 
■  day.  He  said  the  work  was  mostly  finished  before  the 
E.  soldiers  got  there.  There  was  great  spoil — flocks, 
herds,  household  goods,  etc. — but  their  chief  work  was  to 
dispose  of  the  heaps  and  heaps  of  the  dead.  The  stench 
was  awful.  They  were  gathered  into  the  still  standing 
houses  and  burned  with  the  houses.  They  say  that  the 
work  of  destruction  was  wrought  by  the  Hamedieh,  i.  e., 
the  newly-organized  Ivourdish  regiments.  Those  regi- 
ments are  one  of  the  chief  elements  of  danger  to  the  coun- 
try now." 

ISTow  the  American  missionaries  reside  at  twenty  dif- 
ferent points,  from  Constantinople  on  the  west,  to  Van  on 
the  borders  of  Persia,  nearly  a  thousand  miles  to  the  east, 
and  from  Trebizond  on  the  Black  Sea  to  Adana  and  Tar- 
sus on  the  Mediterranean.  All  of  the  points  occupied  by 
them  except  five  are  in  the  interior  of  the  country,  iso- 
lated to  a  considerable  distance  from  each  other,  with  no 
means  of  rapid  intercommunication,  and  with  almost  no 
consular  protection  from  either  this  country  or  Great 
Britain. 

Early  in  October,  ISO-i,  beginning  at  Constantinople 
and  sweeping  over  the  land  almost  to  Persia,  spreading 
in  all  directions  down  to  Mesopotamia  and  to  the  Medi- 
terranean, rolled  the  awful  tide  of  massacre  and  death,  its 
terrible  fury  seeming  to  centre  chiefly  at  the  points  where 
the  missionaries  resided,  and  many  of  them  lost  every- 
thing, not  even  a  change  of  clothing  being  left.  The 
homes  of  all  were  crowded  with  refugee  Armenians,  and 
sometimes  were  then  set  on  fire.     Mission  premises  were 


APPENDIX   B.  679 

speedily  converted  also  into  temporary  hospitals,  and  all 
things  were  shared  in  common  with  the  Armenians,  even 
the  awful  danger  that  overhung  them.  These  horrors  con- 
tinued for  nearly  two  months. 

''The  question  arises,"  continues  Frederick  Davis 
Greene,  ''how  did  the  missionaries  feel,  and  how  did  they 
behave  through  all  this  period  ?"  I  answer  with  two  or 
three  statements  as  a  sample  of  the  whole. 

The  Rev.  C.  F.  Gates,  president  of  Euphrates  Col- 
lege, Harpoot,  wrote  thus  liovember  loth:  "For  three 
days  we  have  looked  death  in  the  face  hourly.  We  have 
passed  by  the  mouth  of  the  bottomless  pit,  and  the  flames 
came  out  against  us,  but  not  one  in  our  company  flinched 
or  faltered.  We  simply  trusted  in  the  Lord  and  went  on. 
We  cannot  trust  any  one,  but  we  do  not  want  to  be  ordered 
out  of  the  country.  If  we  abandon  the  Christians,  they 
are  lost.  .  .  ."  Some  weeks  later  he  writes :  "Many 
letters  express  the  desire  that  we  may  go  home,  but  we  are 
not  going  to  abandon  our  post.  ...  I  would  not  ex- 
change the  peace  and  assurance  of  God's  favor  and  sup- 
port we  now  enjoy  for  the  highest  place  in  America.  We 
may  not  live  to  see  the  consummation  of  God's  purpose, 
but  he  will  accomplish  his  plans,  and  they  will  be  good. 
Threats  abound,  and  the  times  are  critical,  but  in  all  these 
things  we  are  more  than  conquerors  through  him  that 
loved  us." 

Rev.  H.  IT.  Barnum,  Harpoot,  has  been  a  missionary  in 
Turkey  for  thirty-eight  years.  He  met  the  officers  in  the 
door  of  the  college  building,  in  which,  at  the  time  of  the 
massacre,  were  gathered  nearly  five  hundred  Christian 
refugees,  and  told  them  that  the  Americans  would  remain 
there  to  the  last,  even  if  the  building  was  burned.  They 
were  all  saved.  In  a  letter  dated  November  15th,  he  says : 
"As  I  have  been  prominent,  I  have  drawn  hostility  to 
myself,  and  I  hear  that  special  threats  have  been  made. 
But  as  long  as  the  Lord  has  work  for  me  he  will  spare  my 
life."  On  January  2 2d  he  wrote :  "Oh  !  how  sick  at  heart 
we  become  every  day.  Our  friends  express  great  sym- 
pathy for  us  in  what  they  suppose  to  be  our  physical 
privations  and  discomforts.  That  is  nothing.  It  is  the 
physical  suffering  which  is  always  before  us;  the  mental 


680  :\iy  life  and  times. 

distress  of  the  people,  who,  to  save  life  and  family,  have 
professed  Mohaiiiincdaiiisin ;  the  ruin  of  the  work 
throughout  the  whole  field  and  the  land;  and  the  dark, 
uncertain  future  upon  which  not  one  ray  of  light  shines, 
except  through  faith  in  God — this  is  what  makes  us  suf- 
fer. It  is  almost  too  much  for  us  to  bear  at  times.  Yet 
the  Lord  gives  us  daily  strength  for  daily  needs." 

Miss  Shattuck,  who  has  been  twenty-three  years  in 
Turkey,  was  alone  at  Oorfa,  a  three-days'  journey  from 
the  nearest  Americans  or  Europeans.  In  the  two  massa- 
cres that  swept  over  that  city,  from  four  thousand  to  five 
thousand  were  slain.  After  the  first  attack,  permission 
was  secured  by  friends  from  the  government  for  a  safe 
escort  for  her  to  go  to  Aintab,  a  ]ilace  of  greater  safety. 
She  refused  to  go,  and  the  following  is  her  response  of 
January  13,  1896:  '^During  the  massacre  our  house  was 
full — two  hundred  and  forty  found  refuge.  We  began  ta 
have  refugees  Monday  and  Tuesday,  and  all  our  house 
and  school-room  are  full  of  widows  and  orphans  and 
wounded.  How  willingly  would  I  have  died  could  my 
death  have  spared  parents  to  their  children." 

To  all  these  appalling  statements  on  the  high  authority 
of  F.  D.  Greene,  let  me  add  what  Dr.  Cyrus  Hamlin,  my 
old  colleague,  writes  me  September  22,  1897:  "I  listen 
constantly  to  the  loud  cry  of  the  slaughtered  Armenians. 
O,  Lord !  holy  and  true,  how  long  dost  thou  not  judge 
and  avenge  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth  ? 
He  will  avenge  them,  but  a  thousand  years  are  as  one 
day  with  him.  We  are  impatient.  lie  is  infinitely  pa- 
tient." 

But  let  me  now  ask  what  did  the  Christian  powers  of 
Europe  do  to  deliver  the  poor  Armenian  martyrs  from  the 
rage  of  their  Moslem  persecutors  ?  j^othing  whatever. 
What  prevented  ?  They  feared  that  any  such  step  by  any 
one  of  them,  would  set  them  all  to  war  with  one  another ! 
Lord  Salisbury's  cry  at  the  head  of  them  all  was,  the 
peace  of  Europe  must  be  preserved.  Of  him  Bismarck  is 
reported  to  have  made  this  significant  remark,  they  hav- 
ing met  somewhere  in  some  conference:  ''Salisbury  is  a 
man  of  wood  coated  with  sheet-iron."  Dr.  Hamlin  writes 
the  same  date  as  above :  ''Poor  Salisbury  is  unequal  to  his 


APPENDIX   B.  681 

position.  He  has  succumbed  to  Grermany  and  Russia." 
Had  Oliver  Cromwell  but  been  in  Salisbury's  place,  how 
different  had  been  the  position  of  England !  The  reader 
will  remember  how  quickly  he  put  an  end  to  the  persecu- 
tion of  the  Waldenses. 

The  reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  these  Moslem  mas- 
sacres of  1894-'97  are  not  the  only  ones  recorded  in  the 
history  of  Turkey.  Similar  atrocities  were  visited  upon 
the  Greeks  in  1822  ;  upon  the  Nestorians  in  1850  ;  upon 
the  Syrians  in  1860;  upon  the  Cretans  in  1867;  upon 
the  Bulgarians  in  1876 ;  upon  the  Yezidees  in  1892,  and 
the  Armenians  in  1 891.  The  spirit  of  Islam  is  still  that 
of  Mohammed,  ^'The  Koran  or  the  Sword." 


Date  Due 

7    /•         . 

''■•^ 

B^ 

,y'^ 

^gggg^^ 

m  i  ,i,j 

^iki 

mJL 

t  ]  ijjiimn 

i 

hSkndjn^ 

r 

(|) 

1    1012  01035  9992 


